'«  ;.i"'  (■{11111 


■ 

’lifrl 


■ 


■ 


,  '  .  .  i 


* ? . 5 :  r 

>  *  •  a* *#  •  t 

.  .  - 

.  :  *  :  I  ,  '  .  ;  - 

. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/reportofevidenceOObart 


REPORT 

OF  THE 


EVIDENCE  IN  THE  CASE 

OF 

JOHN  STEPHEN  BARTLETT,  M.  D. 

VERSUS 


THE  MASS.  MEDICAL  SOCIETY, 

AS  GIVEN  BEFORE 

A  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  LEGISLATURE, 

AT  THE 

SESSION  OP  1839. 


PRINTED  UNDER  THE  DIRECTION  OF  THE  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  COMMITTEE, 
BY  ORDER  OF  THE  HOUSE. 


IS  o  si  1 a  u  : 

DUTTON  AND  WENTWORTH,  STATE  PRINTERS. 


1  S3  9 


2 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


<£ommowtocalttj  of  SHnsgacJjusctts. 


♦ 

House  of  Representatives,  March  7,  1839. 


Ordered,  That  Messrs.  Stone,  of  Beverly, 

Hinckley,  of  Barnstable,' 

Greene,  of  Nae  Bedford, 

Cushman,  of  Bcrnardstnn, 

Smith,  of  North  Bridgewater, 

Pratt,  of  Middleborough, 

Rix,  of  Marblehead, 

constitute  a  Committee  on  the  Memorial  of  John  Stephen  Bartlett, 

M.  D. 


L.  S.  CUSHING,  Clerk. 


Commontocalt!)  of  iSfassacfjttsetts. 


House  of  Representatives,  April  10,  1839. 

Ordered,  That  the  report  on  the  petition  of  John  Stephen  Bartlett,  be 
printed  under  the  direction  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  and  that 
the  subject  of  the  said  petition  be  referred  to  the  next  General  Court. 

L.  S.  CUSHING,  Clerk. 


3e  /?cy 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


3 


REPORT. 


The  Committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  Memorial  of 
John  Stephen  Bartlett,  M.  D.,  praying  that  the  charter  of 
the  Massachusetts  Medical  Society  “  may  be  declared 
void,  and  that  he  may  obtain  such  redress  of  his  grievan¬ 
ces”  as  the  Legislature  “alone  can  afford,”  ask  leave  to 
state,  that  they  have,  with  unwearied  patience,  and  with 
much  exposure  of  health  by  protracted  night  sessions,  at¬ 
tended  to  the  investigation  of  the  subject.  Ten  meetings 
were  held.  The  first  and  second  were  preliminary. 
The  third  was  devoted  to  Dr.  Bartlett’s  opening.  The 
fourth,  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh  were  occupied  in  hearing 
testimony  introduced  by  him.  The  eighth  was  a  meet¬ 
ing  for  consultation  merely.  And  the  ninth  and  tenth 
were  improved  by  the  respondents.  The  subject  was 
thus  closed,  but  the  parties  having  stated,  that  they  had 
other  testimony  which  time  did  not  suffice  them  to  intro¬ 
duce,  nor  the  Committee  to  hear,  the  chairman  was  di¬ 
rected  by  the  unanimous  voice  of  the  Committee,  to  re¬ 
port  the  evidence  in  the  case,  as  presented,  rather  than 
express  an  official  opinion  on  its  merits.  The  testimony 
is  written  out  from  copious  notes.* 

*  Before  placing  the  manuscript  of  this  report  in  the  hands  of  the  printers, 
the  testimony  of  the  principal  witnesses  was  submitted  to  them  for  exami¬ 
nation,  viz.:  Drs.  Bartlett,  Walker,  Lewis,  Jackson,  Reynolds,  Pierson, 
Briggs,  and  Mr,  Dutton.  They  severally  expressed  their  approbation  of  its 
correctness.  Time  and  circumstances  prevented  its  submittal  to  the  other 
witnesses. 


4 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


March  12,  1839. 

Committee  met  in  Lobby  No.  11,  for  primary  consul¬ 
tation.  Directed  tbe  chairman  to  report  an  order  of  no¬ 
tice  for  the  appearance  of  the  Massachusetts  Medical 
Society,  20th  inst.,  to  show  cause  why  the  prayer  of 
John  Stephen  Bartlett,  M.  D.,  should  not  be  granted. 


Adjourned . 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


5 


Wednesday,  March  20,  1839. 

The  Committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  All 
the  members  present. 

The  following  gentlemen  appeared  as  a  committee  in 
behalf  of  the  Massachusetts  Medical  Society,  viz  :  Drs. 
James  Jackson ,  George  C.  Shattuck,  Rufus  Wyman ,  John 
Homans,  S.  D.  Townsend. 

Pcleg  Sprague,  Esq.  appeared  as  council  for  the  Mas¬ 
sachusetts  Medical  Society,  and  entered  the  following 
protest  against  further  proceedings  in  the  case  : 

To  the  Honorable  the  General  Court  of  the  Common¬ 
wealth  of  Massachusetts : 

Respectfully  represent  the  Massachusetts  Medical  So¬ 
ciety,  that  they  were  incorporated  by  an  act  of  the 
General  Court,  passed  in  the  year  1781,  and  were  duly 
organized,  and  have  ever  since  continued  a  body  corpo¬ 
rate  under  said  act :  that  on  Thursday,  the  fourteenth 
day  of  March,  instant,  their  president  was  served  with  a 
copy  of  the  petition  of  John  Stephen  Bartlett,  and  of  the 
order  of  the  General  Court  thereon,  that  they  should  ap¬ 
pear  on  this  twentieth  day  of  March,  to  show  cause  why 
their  charter  should  not  be  declared  void.  And  now  the 
said  Massachusetts  Medical  Society,  with  entire  and  pro¬ 
found  respect  for  the  General  Court,  suggest  to  vour 
honorable  body,  that  no  power  is  reserved  in  and  by  said 
act  of  incorporation  to  annul,  alter,  or  in  any  manner  to 
affect  the  same  ;  and  said  society  hereby  most  respectfully- 


J.  S.  BARTLE'iT’S  CASE. 


6  * 

object  and  protest,  that  the  honorable  the  General  Court 
have  no  power  to  annul,  or  alter,  or  in  any  manner  im¬ 
pair  the  charter  of  said  society,  and  against  the  exercise 
or  attempted  exercise  of  any  such  power.  And  said 
society  interpose  this  objection  and  protest  from  a  solemn 
sense  of  duty  to  their  founders  and  to  posterity,  lest  any 
acquiescence  now  should  be  drawn  into  precedent  hereaf¬ 
ter,  and  not  from  any  want  of  entire  confidence  in  the 
present  General  Court,  or  any  reluctance  to  meet  the 
said  petition  or  application  of  said  Bartlett.  And  if  the 
honorable  the  General  Court  shall  overrule  this  objection 
and  protest,  and,  notwithstanding  the  same,  require  the 
said  society  to  answer  to  said  petition  or  application  of 
said  Bartlett,  they  will  hold  themselves  in  readiness  to 
do  so  at  the  earliest  practicable  time,  not,  however,  waiv¬ 
ing,  nor  in  any  manner  impairing,  this  objection  and 
protest. 

Boston,  March  20,  1839. 

JAMES  JACKSON, 

GEO.  C.  SHAT  TUCK, 
RUFUS  WYMAN, 

JOHN  HOMANS, 

S.  D.  TOWNSEND, 

A.  L.  PEIRSON, 

Committee. 

The  Society  did  not,  Mr.  S.  remarked,  by  entering  this 
protest,  wish  to  be  understood  as  desiring  to  evade  or 
elude  investigation,  if  the  Committee  thought  proper  to 
pursue  it.  They  were  ready  and  willing  to  go  into  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  affair.  They  put  in  this 
protest  chiefly  to  maintain  a  reserved  right,  to  be  availed 
of  in  future,  if  found  necessary. 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


7 


Mr.  Sprague  suggested  that  the  order  of  notice  had 
been  unusually  short,  the  ordinary  time  for  notifying  cor¬ 
porations  being  not  less  than  thirty  days — that  he  conse¬ 
quently  had  found  no  time  to  prepare  for  the  investigation. 
He  thought  Friday  as  early  a  day  as  he  could  proceed. 
The  supreme  court  being  now  in  session,  his  attendance 
there  was  unavoidable.  If  the  Committee  held  another 
meeting  at  an  earlier  day,  the  Medical  Society  would  be 
compelled  to  seek  other  council — and  whether,  at  this 
moment,  they  could  obtain  it,  was  doubtful. 

Dr.  Bartlett  said  he  was  anxious  to  proceed  without 
delay.  He  had  his  documentary  evidence  with  him,  and 
was  prepared  to  prove  every  charge  he  had  made  in  his 
memorial.  It  wTas  important  to  him  that  no  interruption 
should  take  place.  The  session  of  the  Legislature  was 
drawing  to  a  close.  If  laid  over,  he  might  never  obtain 
a  hearing.  The  next  Legislature  might  not  be  sufficiently 
honest  to  grant  him  one.  He  was  here  without  council, 
a  friendless,  unaided  man.  He  had  not  means  to  protract 
the  issue.  He  had  suffered  in  his  feelings  and  interests, 
and  wished  the  Committee  to  afford  him  an  opportunity 
to  obtain  justice.  He  did  not  ask  this  as  a  boon  ;  he 
demanded  it  as  a  right— -not  for  himself  merely,  but  for 
the  public.  He  wished  expedition  in  the  case,  as  some 
of  the  documents  necessary  could  not  be  kept  by  him 
long.  They  must  be  in  France  in  three  months. 

Mr.  Sprague  said  he  knew  nothing  of  Dr.  Bartlett’s 
grievances  ;  nor  were  they  the  question  now  under  con¬ 
sideration.  The  question  was  concerning  the  charter  of 
the  Massachusetts  Medical  Society.  The  society  certain¬ 
ly  had  a  grievance.  The  annulment  of  its  charter  was 
demanded.  He  should  confine  himself  to  that.  Against 
the  demand  to  annul,  the  protest  was  entered.  At  this 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


8  ' 

time  he  should  go  no  further.  He  should  not  medd  e 
with  Dr.  Bartlett’s  grievances,  unless  compelled  to.  If 
compelled,  he  should  do  so  at  some  future  lime.  The 
Massachusetts  Medical  Society  did  not  wish  to  avoid  in¬ 
vestigation.  He  asked  only  time  to  fulfil  other  duties  in 
court.  If  this  was  not  granted,  he  could  not  appear  for 
the  society. 

Dr.  Bartlett  acceded  to  the  wish  of  Mr.  Sprague,  and 
desired  the  Committee  to  ask  leave  to  sit  while  the  Leg¬ 
islature  was  in  daily  session. 

In  private  conference,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Hinckley, 
voted ,  that  the  protest  of  the  Massachusetts  Medical  So¬ 
ciety  is  not  a  valid  objection  to  a  hearing  of  the  case. 
Adjourned  to  meet  Friday,  at  3  o’clock,  P.  M. 


March  22,  1839. 

Committee  met  according  to  adjournment.  All  mem¬ 
bers  present. 

Dr.  Bartlett  opened  his  case.  He  said  he  proposed  to 
offer  evidence  to  show  : 

1.  That  Harvard  College  has  a  right  to  confer  certain 
privileges  ;  that  among  these,  is  the  right  of  consultation, 
without  referring  to  any  body  of  men  ;  that  this  right  is 
inalienable,  whatever  may  be  the  subsequent  conduct  of 
the  individual  upon  whom  it  was  conferred. 

2.  He  should  prove  that  Harvard  College,  as  a  cor¬ 
porate  body,  possesses  certain  rights  which  the  Massa¬ 
chusetts  Medical  Society  contravenes,  and  that  the  Legis¬ 
lature  is  not  authorized  to  confer  the  power  it  has  upon 
the  Massachusetts  Medical  Society. 

3.  Even  admitting  that  the  charters  of  Harvard  College 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


9 


and  the  Massachusetts  Medical  Society  were  or  are  com¬ 
patible,  he  should  prove  that  the  Medical  Society  had  not 
f'ullil led  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  instituted,  that  its 
officers  have  failed  to  discharge  their  duty,  and  that  the 
society  has  not  complied  with  the  terms  of  its  charter. 

4.  He  should  show  that  the  effects  ol  the  Massachu¬ 
setts  Medical  Society  had  been  injurious  to  society  ;  that 
it  has  imposed  a  yoke  grievous  to  be  borne,  and  that 
young  physicians  have  suffered  from  its  influence. 

5.  He  should  show  that  the  Medical  Society  in  its  in¬ 
fluence!  tended  to  promote  quackery. 

6.  He  should  show  that  the  Massachusetts  Medical  So¬ 
ciety  prohibits  consultation  with  any  who  do  not  become 

members  of  that  bod v. 

•/ 

7.  He;  should  show,  that  in  recommending  a  certain  in- 
dividual  to  public  notice  and  patronage,  in  the  Boston 
Pilot,  he  did  it  as  an  editor  and  not  as  a  physician  ;  and 
that  the  individual  was  a  regular  practitioner  as  an  oc¬ 
ulist. 

8.  He  should  show,  from  a  great  variety  of  circum¬ 
stances,  that  his  memorial  to  the  Legislature  is  based  in 
a  sincere  desire  te)  promote  the  welfare  of  society.  He 
was  not  opposed  to  a  Medical  Society,  but  was  opposed 
to  the  society.  He  was  not  actuated  by  wrong  feeling  in 
this  matter.  He  did  not  view  it  merely  as  a  personal  af¬ 
fair,  but  as  one  in  which  the  public  interest  and  welfare 
was  involved. 

9.  He  should  show  that  he  was  selected  as  an  object 
of  judicial  operation  by  the  society,  for  recommending  as 
an  editor  a  certain  individual  whom  he  believed  a  public 
benefactor;  that  when  asked  to  retract  his  statements,  he 
declined,  and  that  when  told  by  some  member  of  the 
Medical  Society,  that  if  he  persisted,  he  would  be  ex- 

2 


10 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


pelled  ;  he  declared  he  did  not  care — he  should  speak 
what  he  believed  to  be  the  truth,  let  what  might  be  the 
result.  He  should  further  show,  that  he  impeached  Dr. 
Waterhouse,  before  he  (Bartlett)  was  expelled  from  the 
society,  for  recommending  a  notorious  quack  ;  but  that  he 
was  not  dealt  with  according  to  the  letter  of  the  8th  by¬ 
law. 

Dr.  Bartlett  requested  the  Committee  to  obtain  leave 
to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  also  to  sit  during  the 
regular  sessions  of  the  House. 

The  Committee  decided  that  the  future  must  determine 
their  course  in  regard  to  that. 

Mr.  Dexter,  for  the  Committee  of  the  Massachusetts 
Medical  Society,  read  a  paper  asking  the  Committee  to 
require  of  Dr.  Bartlett  specific  charges  in  writing.  The 
Committee  decided  that  Dr.  Bartlett  might  go  on  to  ad¬ 
duce  evidence  of  the  allegations  in  his  memorial  ;  but  that 
if  he  introduced  any  new  charges,  they  must  be  specifi¬ 
cally  stated  in  writing. 

Adjourned  to  Saturday,  A.  M.,  8  o’clock. 


March  23,  1839. 

Committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Benj.  F.  Hallett,  Esq.  appeared  as  council  for  Dr.  Bartlett. 

Dr.  Bartlett  was  called  up  and  sworn  on  the  Holy  Evangely.  Ex¬ 
amined  by  Mr.  Hallett. 

Hallett.  Are  you  a  doctor  of  medicine  ? 

Ans.  I  am.  I  received  my  degree  of  Harvard  College.  Received 
my  diploma  Jan.  23,  1831. 

Hallett.  Was  you  regularly  admitted  a  member  of  the  Massachu¬ 
setts  Medical  Society  ? 

Ans.  I  was.  I  was  admitted  in  - ,  1S33,  and  expelled  in 

May,  1836. 

Hallett.  What  were  the  privileges  which  that  society  conferred  on 
you 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


11 


Ans.  Aid  and  assistance  in  consultation.  Since  my  expulsion  I 
have  been  refused  this. 

Hallett.  What  would  now  be  the  effect  in  a  critical  case  under  your 
care  ? 

Ans.  A  member  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society  could  not  take 
charge  of  it  unless  I  was  discharged.  If  he  did,  he  would  be  exposed 
to  censure,  and,  in  repeated  cases,  would  be  expelled.  This  is  my 
own  experience.  I  have  been  refused  consultation  in  one  case,  be¬ 
cause  the  by-laws  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society  prohibit  it.  Indul¬ 
gence  could  be  obtained  of  the  society  by  a  member,  to  consult  with 
one  not  belonging  to  it,  if  he  made  the  request,  by  representing  the 
case  as  one  involving  life. 

The  Medical  Society  has  upheld  a  member  in  consulting  with  an 
irregular  practitioner,  because  the  person  proposed  to  join  it.  Dr. 
Peirson,  of  Salem,  so  consulted  with  a  physician  in  Ipswich,  who  was 
not  a  member  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society.  He  was  excused.  Dr. 
Peirson  holds  a  high  rank  as  a  professional  man.  This  consultation 
was  in  the  early  part  of  1836. 

Hallett.  Dr.  Bartlett,  please  state  to  the  Committee  the  first  move¬ 
ment  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society  for  your  expulsion,  and  the  causes 
which  led  to  it. 

Dr.  Bartlett.  The  first  steps  taken  for  my  expulsion  were  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  an  article  published  over  my  initials,  “  J.  S.  B.”  in  a 
newspaper  printed  in  this  city,  called  the  “  Boston  Pilot,”  of  which  I 
was  joint  editor.  It  related  to  a  person  by  the  name  of  Williams,  a 
professed  oculist.  The  article  is  as  follows: — 

“Mr.  John  Williams,  the  Oculist.  We  abhor  quackery  in  all 
its  forms — in  medicine,  religion,  politics,  or  any  thing  else ;  and  we 
never  will  be  backward  in  exposing  it  wherever  it  may  be  found.  As 
we  define  the  word,  it  signifies  ignorant  imposture  ;  and,  as  such,  it 
and  its  professors  should  be  held  up  to  the  contempt  and  indignation 
of  an  injured  and  insulted  community.  But  as  our  business  is  chiefly 
to  speak  of  that  sort  which  falls  under  our  more  especial  notice,  viz. 
medical  quackery,  we  shall  confine  our  exordium  to  a  few  remarks 
upon  this.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  by  no  means  essential  that  a  quack 
should  be  distinguished  by  the  absence  of  a  diploma,  for  we  must  say, 
in  sorrow  and  shame,  that  some  of  the  most  flagrant  instances  of  sheer 
quackery  we  ever  witnessed,  (and  our  opportunities  of  observation, 
since  we  received  the  degree  of  M.  D.  at  the  age  of  18  years,  have  not 


12 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


been  very  limited,)  have  occurred  among  duly  authorized  members  of 
our  profession.  It  is  of  no  use  to  disguise  facts — they  are  stubborn 
things;  and  although,  in  penning  this  article,  we  foresee  the  anathe¬ 
matization  to  which  its  publication  will  subject  us  for  our  candor,  yet, 
as  we  are  under  no  remarkable  obligations  to  the  professional  elite  of 
the  city,  with  a  few  honorable  exceptions,  and  most  certainly  under 
none  whatever  to  the  proteges  of  said  elite,  we  shall  speak  our  mind 
very  plainly. 

We,  in  common  with  every  body  in  the  city  who  can  read,  had 
seen  a  great  deal  in  the  daily  journals  about  the  gentleman  whose  name 
heads  these  remarks ;  and  we  observed  a  disposition  in  several  papers 
to  vilify  him,  which,  as  far  as  we  could  judge  from  the  tenor  of  the 
paragraphs  in  which  it  was  manifested,  emanated  from  a  portion  of  the 
source  above  referred  to.  Well,  we  were  determined  to  see  for  our¬ 
self,  and  accordingly  called  on  Mr.  Williams,  and  half  an  hour’s  con¬ 
versation  fully  convinced  us  that  there  was  nothing  like  quackery  about 
him,  so  far  as  regards  his  knowledge  of  his  profession,  or  his  personal 
skill.  As  to  his  manner  of  announcing  his  residence  in  the  city,  it 
certainly  is  unusual  in  this  country;  but  we  do  not  know  how  any 
other  method  could  have  the  desired  effect  of  extending  the  informa¬ 
tion  so  effectually,  in  so  short  a  period  of  time.  Mr.  Williams,  we 
repeat,  is  no  quack.  He  confines  his  attention  exclusively  to  those 
diseases  of  the  eyes  and  ears  which  are  curable  without  surgical  aid ; 
and  the  number  of  these  is  much  greater  than  one  would  suppose.  To 
the  truth  of  this  last  remark,  the  result  of  our  own  practice  has  often 
borne  ample  testimony.  Whenever  a  surgical  operation  is  requisite, 
Mr.  W.  immediately  informs  the  patient  of  the  fact,  and  recommends 
application  to  a  surgeon. 

But  more  than  this,  we  have  examined  several  of  his  patients,  and 
some  of  them  too  who  had  received  any  thing  but  benefit  from  hands 
heretofore  thought  almost  omnipotent  in  diseases  of  a  like  character. 
Now  the  evidence  of  our  senses  amounts  to  this  simple  fact — we  have 
seen  people  who  were  blind,  or  nearly  so,  and  who  had  tried  in  vain 
every  means  of  relief  to  be  obtained  here  without  success,  restored  to 
sight  in  an  incredibly  short  space  of  time,  without  the  aid  of  surgery. 
Several  cases  of  pterygium  and  albugo  were  remarkable  on  this  account. 
Mr.  W.  is  the  author  of  a  valuable  work  in  the  French  language,  on 
the  structure  and  diseases  of  the  eye,  which,  had  space  permitted,  we 
had  intended  to  review. 

The  sum  of  our  remarks  is  this,  that  Mr.  W.  has  acquired  a  degree 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


13 


of  perfection  in  the  management  of  the  distressing  class  of  diseases,  to 
'  which  he  confines  his  attention,  which  has  never  to  our  knowledge 
been  equalled,  at  least  if  the  official  reports  of  the  comparative  number 
cured  or  relieved  in  the  principal  eye  infirmaries  in  this  country  or  in 
Europe  are  to  be  relied  on.  That  the  principles  upon  which  he  founds 
his  treatment,  are  identically  the  same  with  those  maintained  by  the 
most  distinguished  professors,  and  that  the  only  difference  in  the  re¬ 
sults  of  the  separate  methods  of  treatment  is,  that  he  effects  in  a  few 
days,  objects  which  usually  require  months  and  perhaps  years  for  their 
fulfilment. 

He  indeed  keeps  his  remedial  agents  a  secret,  and  he  would  be  a 
great  fool  if  he  did  not,  until  he  had  acquired  an  independent  compe¬ 
tency  for  himself  and  his  family,  as  a  reward  for  his  labor. 

The  world  is  not  generally  so  grateful  as  to  give  a  man  more  cop¬ 
pers  than  kicks  for  what  good  he  may  do  it.  After  it  has  starved  its 
benefactors,  it  is  very  ready  to  console  their  widows  and  orphans  by 
piling  some  dozen  tons  of  granite  over  their  last  home;  the  cost  of 
which  if  it  had  been  given  them  in  their  lifetime,  would  have  smoothed 
the  path  to  that  grave,  where  they  would  lie  quite  as  easy  without  a 
monument  to  remind  others  of  the  spot.  We  therefore  think,  that  Mr. 
Williams  acts  in  this,  the  part  of  a  prudent  man,  particularly  as  his 
services  are  gratuitous  to  the  poor  under  all  circumstances.  We  sup¬ 
pose  his  remedies  will  be  made  known  to  the  world  sometime  or  other, 
and  conclude  by  saying,  that  if  we  ourself  were  atfected  with  disease  of 
the  character  referred  to,  we  would  rather  (M.  D.  as  we  are,)  have  our 
sight  restored  by  Mr.  Williams  without  a  diploma,  than  after  getting 
our  eyes  put  out,  to  be  informed,  that  the  gentleman  to  whom  we  were 
indebted  for  this  friendly  service,  had  a  waggon  load  of  diplomas  from 
all  the  universities  and  societies  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  could  af¬ 
fix  the  letters  of  a  dozen  alphabets  to  the  end  of  his  name. 

(Signed.)  J.  S.  B.” 

“  We  can  only  add  to  the  remarks  in  the  above  article,  that  every 
day’s  observation  since  it  was  written,  has  confirmed  the  opinion  there¬ 
in  expressed,  as  regards  the  success  of  this  gentleman  to  whom  it  re¬ 
fers,  and  the  fact,  that  out  of  more  than  one  hundred  and  forty  cases 
which  we  have  rigidly  scrutinized,  that  one  hundred  and  thirty-eight 
are  relieved,  and  more  than  seventy  cured;  of  which  last,  nine  were 
at  the  time  of  application  to  Mr.  W.  totally  blind ;  and  the  major  por¬ 
tion  of  the  whole  number  had  been  under  the  most  skilful  treatment 
to  be  obtained  in  New  England,  without  receiving  benefit.  In  no  sin- 


14 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


gle  case  have  we  heard  an  expression  of  dissatisfaction  at  his  treatment, 
but  on  the  contrary,  the  most  enthusiastic  expressions  of  gratitude. 
We  had  written  a  larger  notice,  but  have  no  space  to  say  more. 

(Signed.)  J.  S.  B.” 

Hallett.  Did  you  write  that  article  as  a  Fellow  of  the  Mass.  Medical 
Society,  or  as  an  editor  ? 

Ans.  As  an  editor. 

Hallett.  Are  the  facts  therein  stated  true? 

Ans.  They  are.  I  could  not  as  an  honest  man  refuse  to  make 
these  facts  known. 

Hallett.  Could  you  conscientiously  retract  this  statement  at  any 
subsequent  time  ? 

Ans.  I  could  not. 

Hallett.  Have  you  evidence  of  Dr.  Williams’  standing  and  medical 
character  ? 

Ans.  Yes.  I  have  his  diploma  and  various  papers  received  by  him 
in  Paris  and  elsewhere.  These  documents  satisfied  me  of  his  regular 
standing  as  an  oculist,  before  writing  the  article  in  the  Pilot  concern¬ 
ing  him. 

Hallett.  What  took  place  after  the  publication  of  the  article  con¬ 
cerning  Dr.  Williams? 

Ans.  One  or  two  days  after,  Drs.  J.  B.  Flint  and  Winslow  Lewis, 
Fellows  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society,  cautioned  me  of  my  danger.  A 
few  days  subsequent  to  this,  I  was  notified  to  meet  the  Boston  Medical 
Association,  of  which  I  was  a  member.  This  is  a  voluntary  associa¬ 
tion,  to  regulate  the  intercourse  and  fees  of  its  members.  It  is  not  a 
corporate  body.  Its  members  belong  to  the  Mass.  Medical  Society. 
None  but  members  are  allowed  to  attend  its  meetings.  The  notice  I 
received  was  of  ordinary  character,  though  I  found  its  object  was  spe¬ 
cial.  I  was  impeached  before  this  body  by  Dr.  Storer,  and  subsequent¬ 
ly  expelled.  The  charges  preferred  against  me  were,  consulting  with 
irregular  practitioners,  and  aiding  and  abetting  quacks.  These  charg¬ 
es  referred  to  my  intercourse  with  Dr.  Patrick  Kearney  and  Dr.  Wil¬ 
liams.  The  charges  were  referred  to  a  committee. 

After  my  expulsion  from  the  Boston  Medical  Association,  I  was 
summoned  by  notice,  to  appear  before  the  counsellors  of  the  Mass. 
Medical  Society,  to  answer  to  charges  of  having  violated  the  eighth 
article  of  its  by-laws,  by  aiding  and  abetting  quacks  or  irregular  prac¬ 
titioners.  I  appeared,  and  justified  the  course  I  had  taken  as  well  as  1 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


15 


could.  I  had  abundance  of  time  allowed  me  for  my  defence.  There 
is  no  rule  of  the  society  by  which  I  could  compel  a  Fellow  to  give  his 
testimony.  I  think  the  tendency  of  the  society’s  operations  unpropi- 
tious.  In  my  opinion,  its  influence  would  have  ruined  any  young  man 
who  should  have  aided  me  at  my  trial.  The  counsellors  decided  to 
submit  the  case  to  the  society  at  large,  which  was  done  in  May,  1836. 
A  report  of  my  trial  is  contained  in  the  Boston  Medical  Journal,  of 
June  8,  1836.  This  report  I  consider  full  and  impartial. 

Question  by  Mr.  Greene.  Do  you  rely  upon  the  language  attributed 
to  Dr.  Peirson  in  that  report  as  proof  of  the  charge  contained  in  the 
tenth  allegation  of  your  memorial  ? 

Dr.  Bartlett.  I  do.  I  consider  the  words  used  by  Dr.  Peirson  as 
there  reported,  to  contain  substantially  the  meaning  which  I  have  at¬ 
tributed  to  them. 

The  effects  and  influence  of  my  expulsion  have  been  highly  injurious 
to  my  character  and  prospects.  Medical  gentlemen  have  refused  to 
consult  with  me,  and  I  have  lost  prospective  practice.  My  degree 
from  Harvard  College  has  been  of  no  service  to  me  since  my  expulsion. 
I  have  now  no  right  which  any  loafer  may  not  enjoy.  My  diploma  is 
of  no  use  to  me  here.  The  influence  of  the  Medical  Society  is  to  crush 
a  man  down,  and  render  him  worse  than  dead.  Since  my  expulsion, 
I  have  received  attentions  from  members  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society 
as  a  gentleman,  but  not  as  a  professional  man.  I  find  no  difference  of 
deportment  in  the  former  case;  in  the  latter,  I  do.  I  have  had  to 
struggle  to  sustain  myself.  I  have  had  no  wealthy  friends  upon  whom 
I  could  lean.  I  received  nothing  as  a  compensation  for  my  services 
as  an  editor  of  the  Pilot.  I  rely  upon  my  professional  services  for 
support.  I  find  it  necessary  to  follow  other  pursuits  for  a  livelihood. 
No  complaint  of  mal-practice  was  ever  preferred  against  me;  but  I 
have  received  many  second-hand  compliments  for  professional  skill.  I 
know  of  none  who  ever  impeached  my  medical  practice. 

There  is  a  by-law  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society  which  makes  it  un¬ 
lawful  for  a  member  to  offer  to  cure  disease  by  the  use  of  a  secret 
medicine.  He  is  bound  to  make  known  all  his  discoveries  in  medical 
science  for  the  general  good.  There  is  no  division  of  fees  among  the 
members  of  the  society.  Each  receives  and  enjoys  his  own.  The 
fee-bill  is  local  in  its  laws  and  operations. 

A  young  man  must  join  the  Mass.  Medical  Society  to  be  received 
and  enjoy  consultation,  unless  he  is  a  graduate  of  the  Medical  School 
of  Harvard  College.  It  is  the  same  with  any  distinguished  foreign 


16 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


medical  gentleman,  unless  he  is  an  honorary  member,  or  is  remaining 
here  transiently  without  design  to  practice.  A  young  man,  by  receiv¬ 
ing  a  degree  from  the  Medical  School  of  Harvard  College,  has  the 
privilege  of  consultation.  If  he  joins  the  Mass.  Medical  Society  and 
is  expelled,  he  loses  that  right.  I  was  induced  to  join  the  .Mass.  Med¬ 
ical  Society  from  a  desire  and  supposition  that  it  would  promote  my 
own  and  the  general  good.  I  tried  to  induce  Dr.  Kearney  to  join  the 
Mass.  Medical  Society,  but  thought  he  must  be  first  naturalized.  Dr. 
K.  did  not  wish  to  put  himself  under  restrictions.  He  is  a  man  of 
independent  feelings.  Dr.  K.  was  a  regularly  educated  practitioner  in 
his  own  country.  The  cathodic  community  prefer  one  of  their  own 
faith  for  their  physician,  that,  in  cases  of  the  apprehended  death  of 
children  before  they  can  be  taken  to  the  church  for  baptism,  or  a  priest 
can  be  sent  for,  he,  (the  physician,)  may  perform  the  rite  according  to 
the  usage  of  the  church.  I  explained  this  to  the  Medical  Society. 
Adjourned. 

March  26,  1S39. 

Committee  met  according  to  adjournment. 

Dr.  Bartlett  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Dexter. 

Dexter.  Dr.  Bartlett,  were  you  familiar  with  the  8th  by-law  of  the 
Mass.  Medical  Society,  (just  read,)  when  you  were  admitted  a  member? 

Ans.  I  was  not.  I  had  read  it,  but  did  not  think  much  of  its  pro¬ 
hibition.  I  imagined  it  had  allusion  only  to  quacks,  and  not  to  those 
who  had  diplomas  from  other  States,  regularly  educated  foreigners, 
&.c.  On  my  oath,  I  did  not  think  the  first  clause  to  apply  to  regularly 
educated  foreigners. 

Dexter.  How  did  you  understand  that  language? 

Ans.  Not  as  I  now  do. 

Dexter.  When  did  you  join  the  Mass.  Medical  Society  ? 

Ans.  In  1833. 

Dexter.  Did  you  not  then  think  the  8th  by-law  applied  to  foreign¬ 
ers? 

Ans.  I  did  not  at  that  time. 

Dexter.  When  did  you  take  your  degree? 

Ans.  In  1831. 

Dexter.  You  signed  the  by-laws  when  admitted  a  member  of  the 
Mass.  Medical  Society,  did  you  not? 

Ans.  I  did.  I  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  read  them  before  signing. 

Dexter.  Did  you  know  Dr.  Williams  was  an  irregular  practitioner 
when  you  wrote  the  article  in  the  Pilot  ? 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


17 


Ans.  I  did  not.  Williams  said  he  did  not  wish  to  be  called  Dr., 
as  he  was  professedly  an  oculist  and  aurist. 

Dexter.  Was  you  notified  by  the  society  that  you  was  violating  the 
by-laws  by  recommending  Williams? 

Ans.  I  was. 

Dexter.  Did  you  not  then  desist? 

Ans.  I  did  not.  I  did  not  consult  with  Williams  as  a  physician. 
I  visited  him,  but  not  as  a  consulting  physician.  I  never  visited  with 
him  but  twice,  and  then  not  as  a  physician. 

Dexter.  Do  you  know  Williams’s  secret  remedies? 

Ans.  I  do  not.  I  wish  I  did. 

Dexter.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  case  of  Mrs.  A.  Plummer  ? 

Ans.  Cannot  say  I  am. 

Dexter.  Do  you  not  recollect  a  female  who  came  up  from  Salem  to 
obtain  help  from  Williams? 

Ans.  I  do  not. 

Dexter.  Can  you  tell  by  examining  the  eye  whether  it  is  under 
paralysis? 

Ans.  Can  generally. 

Dexter.  Have  you  seen  such  cases  cured? 

Ans.  I  saw  one  in  New  York  greatly  relieved  by  Dr.  Williams.  I 
saw  the  woman  in  September  last;  she  then  could  discern  nothing 
distinctly.  I  saw  her  a  few  weeks  since,  and  she  counted  my  fingers. 
I  saw  Dr.  Warren  cure  a  similar  case,  to  the  same  extent,  by  burning 
down  in  the  neck.  I  produced  my  own  testimony  to  the  Medical  So¬ 
ciety  as  proof  of  Williams’s  skill,  and  offered  more. 

I  did  not  ask  any  one  to  aid  me  at  my  trial.  Several  gentlemen 
spoke  in  palliation  of  my  offence,  but  did  not  defend  me.  I  was 
courteously  treated  at  my  trial,  and  have  no  cause  to  complain. 

Dexter.  State  what  facts  you  have  from  personal  observation,  that, 
if  any  young  man  had  come  forward  to  aid  you  at  your  trial,  he  would 
have  been  ruined? 

Ans.  I  was  told  so  frequently.  Heard  so  miscellaneously.  Re¬ 
cently  informed  so  by  a  counsellor  of  the  society.  This  was  his  opin¬ 
ion.  Drs.  Lewis,  Flint  and  Smith,  at  my  trial,  spoke  in  palliation  of 
my  offence.  They  suffered  in  consequence.  Dr.  Lewis  was  removed 
from  the  chair  of  demonstrator  of  anatomy  in  Harvard  College,  and 
subsequently  from  the  office  of  consulting  surgeon  at  the  Mass.  General 
Hospital,  as  I  believe,  for  the  part  he  took  at  my  trial. 

Dexter.  Did  Dr.  Smith  suffer  ? 

3 


18 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


.4ns.  No,  because  the  city,  not  the  society,  paid  him.  I  wanted  to 
get  out  of  the  s<h  iety,  and  told  them  so.  I  requested  to  withdraw  from 
the  Boston  Medical  Association. 

Dexter.  When,  where,  and  by  whom  was  it  said  that  “  the  laws  of 
the  Massachusetts  Medical  Society  do  not  recognize  the  sentiment, 
that  a  regard  for  morality  and  the  general  good  of  mankind  is  in  any 
wise  incumbent  on  its  members;  and  that  its  members  are  bound  to 
obey  the  by-laws  of  the  society  without  reserve,  even  though  the  sacri¬ 
fice  of  human  life  be  the  consequence?” 

Ans.  It  was  said,  at  the  time  of  my  trial,  by  Dr.  Abel  L.  Peirson, 
of  Salem.  I  thought  at  the  time  this  language  was  a  part  of  the  by¬ 
laws  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society.  I  afterward  found  my  mistake.  I 
contemplated,  when  Dr.  Peirson  uttered  these  words,  to  do  what  I  am 
now  doing.  I  make  the  deduction  that  this  is  the  spirit  of  the  by-laws, 
from  what  Dr.  P.  said.  I  did  not  state  this  in  my  letter  to  the  society. 
I  purposely  reserved  it. 

Dexter.  In  reply  to  this  part  of  Dr.  Bartlett’s  testimony,  I  will  here 
read,  with  the  permission  of  the  Committee,  a  certificate  from  Drs. 
Warren,  Hale  and  Homans.  It  is  as  follows: 

“  The  undersigned  certify,  that  they  were  present  at  the  impeach¬ 
ment,  trial  and  expulsion  of  Dr.  J.  S.  Bartlett  from  the  Mass.  Medical 
Society,  at  their  annual  meeting  in  1836,  and  heard  the  remarks  made 
by  Dr.  Peirson  in  reply  to  Dr.  Bartlett,  and  that  there  was  no  such 
language  or  sentiment  expressed  by  Dr.  Peirson  on  that  occasion,  or 
any  other  within  their  knowledge,  as  those  which  are  imputed  to  him 
by  Dr.  Bartlett  in  his  petition  to  the  Legislature. 

Boston,  March  18,  1S39. 

JOHN  C.  WARREN, 

President  in  May,  1836. 
ENOCH  HALE, 

Cor.  Sec’ry  at  the  same  time. 
JOHN  HOMANS, 

Pec.  Sec’ry  at  the  same  time. 

Dexter.  Dr.  Bartlett,  do  you  think  any  members  of  the  Medical 
Society  were  actuated  by  unfriendly  feelings  at  the  time  of  your  trial? 

Ans.  I  think  one  individual  was;  Prof.  Roby,  of  Bowdoin  College. 
In  his  report  of  my  trial  he  appended  as  a  note,  a  quotation  from  Mil- 
ton,  intended  as  I  thought,  to  ridicule  my  person.  I  wrote  him  about 
it,  but  obtained  no  satisfaction. 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


19 


[The  passage  was  read,  which  is  as  follows  : 

“  But  he  his  wonted  pride 
Soon  recollecting,  with  high  words,  that  lore 
Semblance  of  ivorth ,  not  substance,  gently  rais’d 
Their  fainting  courage,  and  dispelled  their  fears. 

Then  strait  commands  that  at  the  warlike  sound 
Of  trumpets  loud  and  clarions  be  uprearcd 
His  mighty  standard  ;  that  proud  honor  claimed 
Azazei.  as  his  right,  a  cherub  tall  : 

Who  forthwith  from  the  glittering  staff  unfurled 
The  imperial  ensign,  which  full  high  advanced, 

Shone  like  a  meteor  streaming  to  the  wind, 

With  gems  and  golden  lustre  rich  emblazed, 

Seraphic  arms  and  trophies  :  all  the  while 
Sonorous  metal  blowing  martial  sounds.”] 

Dexter.  What  inference  do  you  draw  from  the  application  of  the 
term  Azazei  to  yourself? 

Ans.  That  Milton  did  not  understand  Hebrew  so  well  as  myself ; 
and  that  in  making  use  of  that  word  in  my  defence,  (the  word  signify¬ 
ing  the  “  scape-goat”  upon  whose  head  the  high  priest  laid  the  sins  of 
Israel,  and  sent  him  forth  into  the  desert,)  1  meant  to  convey  the  idea, 
that  I  had  no  wish  to  bear  off  the  accumulated  sins  of  the  Mass.  Medi¬ 
cal  Society  upon  my  own  solitary  shoulders. 

I  admit  that  the  society  acted  in  good  faith  in  expelling  me,  under 
the  by-laws.  I  told  the  society,  I  should  persevere  in  violating  the  by¬ 
laws  whenever  I  thought  the  good  of  mankind  required.  I  would  not 
violate  my  conscience  or  my  religion.  Dr.  Shurtleff  has  given  his 
sanction  to  quack  medicine.  I  am  not  opposed  to  medical  societies. 
I  would  not  have  quackery  encouraged.  I  lost  my  practice  among 
protestants  in  Boston,  Salem  and  Marblehead,  by  my  expulsion.  I 
could  not  obtain  a  surgeon’s  post  in  the  United  States  service,  in  con¬ 
sequence. 

Dr.  Bartlett  said  he  wished  to  lay  before  the  Committee,  the  diplo¬ 
mas  and  other  testimonials  of  Dr.  Williams,  but  as  they  were  in  some 
confusion,  to  save  time,  he  would,  before  another  meeting,  arrange 
them  in  their  proper  order  for  presentation. 

Dr.  Lewis  asked  permission  to  state,  that  he  did  not  believe  there 
was  any  connexion  between  his  having  taken  an  interest  in  Dr.  Bart¬ 
lett  at  the  time  of  his  trial,  and  the  loss  of  his  office  as  demonstrator  of 
anatomy  at  Harvard  Medical  College.  Adjourned. 


20 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


March  29,  1809. 

Committee  met  according  to  adjournment. 

Dr.  Bartlett  cross-examined  by  Dr.  Piirson.  I  was  refused  consul¬ 
tation  by  Dr.  Briggs,  of  Marblehead,  inconsequence  of  my  expulsion 
from  the  Mass.  Medical  Society. 

Halit tt.  Have  you  been  lefused  consultation  generally  by  the  Fel¬ 
lows  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society,  in  consequence  of  your  expulsion? 

Arts.  I  have.  Dr.  Briggs  refused  for  that  reason  alone.  I  have 
had  but  few  occasions  to  consult.  I  had  once  to  send  out  of  town  to 
obtain  assistance  in  a  surgical  operation,  of  one  who  was  not  a  regular 
practitioner.  In  many  instances,  when  I  needed  advice  I  could  not 
have  it,  because  the  physician  could  not  consult  with  me  consistently 
with  the  requisition  of  the  by-laws. 

Dr.  'William  J.  Walker,  of  Charlestown,  sworn  and  examined.  I  am 
a  member  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society.  I  have  been  present  at  most 
of  the  society’s  meetings,  and  have  read  the  report  of  Dr.  Bartlett’s 
trial  in  the  Medical  Journal.  The  report  is  substantially  accurate. 
The  charges  of  consultation  with  Drs.  Kearney  and  Williams,  but 
chiefly  the  latter,  and  the  article  in  the  “  Pilot,”  operated  to  produce 
Dr.  Bartlett’s  expulsion.  I  think  the  letter  of  the  society’s  by-laws 
have  been  violated  by  members.  Dr.  Waterhouse  recommended  the 
Thompsonian  practice,  and  Dr.  Samuel  Shurtleff  has  recommended 
Mrs.  Gardner’s  Pulmonary  Balsam.  I  have  myself  violated  the  by¬ 
laws,  but  have  never  been  called  to  account.  The  report  to  the  coun¬ 
sellors  in  1836,  on  the  eighth  by-law,  explains  the  view  of  the  society 
touching  its  infraction. 

I  opposed  Dr.  Bartlett’s  expulsion.  A  reporter  was  permitted  to 
take  notes  of  his  trial.  The  meetings  of  the  society  are  open  while  a 
discourse  is  read.  The  business  is  transacted  only  by  members.  I 
have  seen  such  as  were  not  Fellows  present  at  annual  meetings.  I 
have  known  the  president  notify  the  company  present,  that  the  society 
were  engaged  in  the  transaction  of  business,  and  to  request  those  who 
were  not  Fellows  to  retire. 

The  M  ass.  Medical  Society  was  opposed  to  the  incorporation  of  the 
Berkshire  Medical  Institution.  A  member  of  the  latter  could  not  at 
first  become  a  Fellow  of  the  former.  This  disability  is  now  removed. 
Some  M.  D’s.  are  not  skilful  practitioners.  M.  D.  is  evidence  of  hav¬ 
ing  gone  through  a  regular  course  of  medical  study.  The  Mass.  Medi¬ 
cal  Society  has  no  power  to  examine  students  from  Harvard  College 
and  the  Berkshire  Medical  Institution.  Physicians  coming  from  out 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


21 


the  State,  are  admitted  on  producing  their  diplomas,  and  exhibiting 
evidence  of  having  been  through  a  course  of  education  as  thoiough  as 
re  ;uired  by  the  Mass  Medical  Society.  A  young  man  would  find 
himself  unpleasantly  situated  who  did  not  become  a  Fellow  of  the  so¬ 
ciety.  He  could  not  comm  and  the  confidence  of  his  patients,  and  they 
would  seek  other  assistance.  I  consider  recommending  Dr.  Thomp¬ 
son  as  really  a  violation  of  the  by-law  as  recommending  Williams.  I 
think  had  Dr.  Waterhouse  been  expelled,  he  would  have  written  us 
down  a  good  deal..  It  is  injurious  to  a  young  man  to  be  expelled  from 
the  society.  To  have  defended  Dr.  Bartlett  might  have  given  offence 
to  the  older  members.  I  do  not  know  of  any  dispensing  power  which 
authorizes  the  expulsion  of  one  and  not  another  who  has  violated  the 
by-laws.  I  never  knew  any  action  of  the  society  against  Dr.  Samuel 
Shurtle.T  for  recommending  the  Pulmonary  Balsam.  In  regard  to  Dr. 
Waterhouse,  it  was  doubted  if  he  were  a  Fellow  of  the  society.  His 
letter  of  acceptance  is  not  on  file.  A  Fellow  at  the  age  of  sixty  can 
be  excused  from  meeting  with  the  society,  and  still  be  entitled  to  its 
publications.  If  he  wishes,  he  can  withdraw.  If  he  withdraws,  and 
continues  to  practise,  he  becomes  an  irregular  practitioner,  and  dis¬ 
qualified  to  receive  consultation-aid.  Many  of  the  most  valuable  med¬ 
icines  have  originated  with  empiricks.  If  I  make  a  beneficial  discov¬ 
ery  in  medicine,  I  am  bound  to  make  it  known  to  the  society.  The 
Medical  Society  neither  encourages  nor  discourages  those  who  do  not 
belong  to  it.  It  leaves  the  field  of  progress  open  to  all.  I  think  the 
society  is  not  on  a  proper  basis.  I  do  not  know  what  the  effects  of 
breaking  it  up  would  be.  The  organization  of  the  society,  I  think, 
should  be  changed.  Nearly  all  the  business  is  transacted  by  the  coun¬ 
sellors  from  the  several  counties  of  the  State.  An  undue  influence  is 
obtained  by  the  few,  and  withheld  from  the  many.  Some  think  the 
society  a  burthen  rather  than  a  benefit — feeling  is  suppressed  on  this 
subject. 

Cross-examined  by  Dr.  Jackson.  The  laws  of  the  society  do  not 
compel  a  Fellow  to  consult  with  any  one  who  may  demand  consulta¬ 
tion.  A  diploma  is  to  show  that  the  student  has  completed  his  educa¬ 
tion,  and  is  now  ready  to  commence  business.  I  have  never  seen  Dr. 
Waterhouse  at  any  of  the  meetings  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society.  I 
have  been  a  frequent  attendant  for  17  or  IS  years.  When  any  real  or 
supposed  discovery  is  made  in  medicine,  we  are  anxious  to  make  it 
known  to  all,  for  the  general  good.  I  do  not  know  that  Dr.  Bowditch, 
who  voted  against  Dr.  Bartlett’s  expulsion,  has  ever  suffered  in  conse- 


22 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


quence.  He  is  a  favorite  with  all.  I  have  not  suffered,  myself.  1 
think  a  young  man  to  have  defended  Bartlett  would  have  been  injured; 
but  have  no  direct  evidence  of  the  fact.  I  opposed  Dr.  Bartlett’s  ex¬ 
pulsion  as  inexpedient.  I  thought  then,  as  I  think  now,  he  wanted  the 
notoriety  which  this  would  give  him,  and  that  he  wished  to  injure  the 
society.  I  think  the  graduates  of  the  Berkshire  Medical  Institution 
were  admitted  to  the  same  privileges  in  the  society  as  the  graduates  of 
the  Harvard  Medical  School,  when  their  claims  could  no  longer  be 
resisted.  Dr.  Lewis  preferred  charges  against  certain  members  of  the 
Medical  Society,  after  Dr.  B’s  expulsion.  The  subject  was  committed 
to  a  committee,  who,  in  their  report,  censured  Dr.  L.  This  has  ope¬ 
rated  to  his  injury.  I  know  of  no  discoveries  made  by  quacks  which 
have  been  adopted  by  the  Medical  Society  the  past  20  years.  I  think 
Dr.  Jenner  received  a  bonus  from  Parliament  of  .£20,000,  on  recom¬ 
mendation  of  several  distinguished  members  of  the  faculty.  I  should 
consider  my  convictions  of  right  more  than  paramount  to  my  obliga¬ 
tions  to  the  society.  I  believe  I  have  never  read  my  diploma.  I  con¬ 
sider  burning  for  amaurosis  less  painful  than  caustic  potash  or  moxa. 
I  have  always  practised  this  myself  in  preference  to  caustic.  I  have 
known  a  complete  amaurosis,  (i.  e.  a  case  of  blindness,  with  symptoms 
in  all  respects  similar  to  others  who  never  recovered  sight,)  cured,  but 
not  by  the  application  of  moxa.  The  hotter  the  iron  the  less  painful 
its  application. 

Dr.  Lewis  was  left  off  the  list  of  consulting  surgeons  at  the  Mass. 
General  Hospital,  at  the  next  meeting  subsequent  to  Dr.  Bartlett’s  ex¬ 
pulsion.  His  offence  to  the  Medical  Society  was,  in  not  sustaining 
the  charges  he  had  preferred.  The  appointment  of  consulting  phy¬ 
sicians  and  surgeons  to  the  Mass.  General  Hospital,  is  made  by  the 
trustees.  I  think  the  removal  of  Dr.  Lewis  was  influenced  by  some 
Fellows  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society.  Members  have  a  right  to  ex¬ 
amine  the  records  of  the  society,  but  not  to  make  extracts  or  take 
copies.  I  have  never  known  secrecy  imposed  on  the  Fellows  of  the 
society.  I  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  moral  obligation  is  less  re¬ 
garded  by  the  society  than  human  life  and  the  public  good.  The 
Medical  Society  has  no  control  over  medical  education.  Adjourned. 

April  2,  1S39. 

Dr.  Walker  wished  to  make  a  few  remarks  concerning  his  testimony 
at  the  last  meeting.  He  said  he  never  knew  of  secret  proceedings  in 
the  society  but  once,  which  was,  that  the  name  of  a  Fellow  making 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


23 


charges  against  another  Fellow  for  an  infraction  of  the  Sth  by-law,  was 
kept  private  from  the  society,  while  the  name  of  the  accused  and  the 
circumstances  of  .the  alleged  mal-practice,  were  given  to  the  society, 
and,  he  believed,  published.  He  explained  the  remark  that  the  Medi¬ 
cal  Society  had  no  control  over  medical  education,  by  saying,  he 
merely  meant  that  those  who  come  from  the  Berkshire  Medical  School 
and  Harvard  College,  must  be  received  without  examination. 

Mr.  John  Orne,  of  Marblehead,  sworn  and  examined  by  Hallctt. 
Have  long  been  acquainted  with  Dr.  Bartlett — consider  him  a  skilful 
surgeon — knew  of  his  being  called,  two  years  since,  to  a  boy  kicked  by 
a  horse.  He  was  sent  for  by  the  family  to  my  store,  but  was  not  there. 
Dr.  Briggs  then  went  to  the  boy.  Dr.  Peirson,  of  Salem,  was  sent  for 
by  Dr.  Briggs’s  direction,  and  performed  the  operation  of  trepanning. 
The  boy  died  the  next  afternoon.  Dr.  Bartlett  was  in  town  at  the 
time — believe  he  had  surgical  instruments. 

Cross-examined  by  Dexter.  Do  not  know  any  thing  about  Dr.  Bart¬ 
lett’s  skill  at  trepanning.  Knew  him  to  amputate  a  leg  at  the  poor- 
house.  It  is  about  4i  miles  from  Marblehead  to  Salem.  Dr.  Peirson 
frequently  comes  to  Marblehead  to  perform  operations.  Dr.  Briggs 
often  sent  for  him.  The  boy  never  rallied  after  receiving  the  wound; 
remained  insensible  till  he  died. 

Dr.  Winslow  Laois  sworn  and  examined  by  Hallctt.  I  am  a  mem¬ 
ber  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society.  I  have  been  long  in  practice.  I 
was  present  at  the  last  meeting  of  this  committee,  and  heard  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Dr.  Walker.  I  should  say  aye  to  every  thing  he  said  con¬ 
cerning  the  influence  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society.  I  think,  from  my 
own  experience,  that  any  man  who  defended  Dr.  Bartlett  at  his  trial, 
would  not  have  fared  so  well.  I  espoused  his  cause  in  part,  and  wished 
him  suspended.  I  think  the  article  in  the  Pilot  was  the  cause  of  his 
impeachment.  Have  known  no  others  expelled,  though  they  have 
committed  similar  offences.  Dr.  Bartlett,  before  he  was  expelled,  pre¬ 
sented  the  names  of  fourteen  Fellows,  whom  he  charged  with  violating 
the  by-laws.  This  presentation  was  not  acted  upon.  The  day  after 
his  expulsion  I  addressed  a  letter  to  the  society,  saying  that,  influenced 
by  a  sense  of  justice  to  those  persons,  and  willing  the  society  should 
mete  out  to  all  alike,  I  renewed  those  charge?.  The  committee  wanted 
me  to  go  more  into  specific  detail  of  facts.  Not  satisfied  with  my  do¬ 
ings,  they  reported  to  the  society,  which  report  was  published, 
censuring  my  good  faith.  I  rebutted  it  through  the  same  me- 


24 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


dium.*  Ten  Fellows  had  broken  the  8th  by-law,  and  one  the  9th. 
Dr  Peirson  consulted  with  an  irregular  practitioner,  but  justified  it  on 
the  ground  that  the  said  practitioner  afterward  joined  the  society.  I 
think  Dr.  Waterhouse’s  recommendation  of  the  Thompsonian  system  a 
mote  aggravated  infraction  of  the  8th  by-law  than  Dr.  Bartlett’s  con¬ 
sulting  with  Williams  as  an  oculist.  In  Europe,  an  oculist  exercises  a 
distinct  branch  of  the  profession.  The  practitioner  must  possess  some 


*  At  a  subsequent  stage  of  Dr.  L’s.  examination,  lie  read  the  communication  here  referred 
to,  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  the  motives  by  which  he  was  influenced  to  renew  the 
charges  preferred  by  Dr  Bartlett,  and  also  to  show  that  ins  respect  for,  and  confidence  in 
the  usefulness  of  the  Massachusetts  Medical  Society  w  ere  then  undiminished.  To  preserve 
the  unity  of  his  testimony,  the  communication  is  iiisci  led  in  this  note. 

To  Drs.  Hayward,  Hale  and  Alden. 

Gentlemen  : — The  newspapers  of  Saturday  last,  contained  a  communication  unrler  your 
signatures,  purporting  to  reuresent  the  proceedings  of  the  Council  of  the  Massachusetts  .Med¬ 
ical  Society,  in  relation  to  certain  measures  of  discipline  which  were  instituted  at  the  last 
annual  meeting.  As  it  is  known  to  the  members  of  the  society,  and  to  some  persons  out  of 
it,  that  the  accusation  referred  to  in  the  reoort  was  made  In'  me,  and  of  course,  that  it  was 
my  conduct  which  had  occasioned  so  much  “  surprise”  among  the  Counsellors  ;  and  as  the 
report,  by  allusion  and  innuendo,  if  not  in  terms,  reflected  alike  on  my  good  faith  and  good 
sense,  I  have  thought  best  to  notice  it  in  as  public  a  manner  as  its  appearance,  to  slate 
briefly  my  relations  to  the  subject  matter  of  it,  and  to  comment  a  little  on  the  remarkable 
positions  taken  by  the  Committee. 

Nevertheless,  I  should  have  declined  this  unpleasant  duty,  if  there  had  not  been  appended 
to  the  apology  for  not  examining  the  complaint,  a  labored  defence  of  the  Society,  in  which 
there  seems  to  be  deprecated  some  injury  or  odium  which  the  connection  of  the  topics  would 
justify  a  reader  in  supposing,  w  ere  expected  from  die  conduct  of  the  complainant. 

But  before  proceeding  to  the  lew  remarks  I  have  to  make  on  the  principles  of  the  report, 
I  shall  take  leave  to  protest  most  strenuously  against  the  publication  itself.  Such  an  appeal 
to  the  public  on  a  subject  not  yet  considered  ny  the  Society,  and  therefore  still  “  sub  judice” 
is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  unusual,  and,  as  I  believe,  quite  unauthorized  by  any  of  the  powers 
and  prerogatives,  ample  as  they  are,  with  which  the  constitution  and  by-laws  have  invested 
the  Counsellors. 

At  the  last  annual  meeting  of  the  society,  a  youthful  and  humble  member  of  it  was  ar¬ 
raigned  for  gross  violations  of  the  by-laws;  and  in  conducting  his  defence,  attempted  to 
justify  some  of  his  transgressions,  by  die  example  of  older  and  more  distingu'shed  members. 
This  was,  of  course,  no  valid  excuse  or  apology,  and  left  him  fairly  subject  to  the  severest 
penalties  of  the  constitution,  and  they  were  faiily  inflicted.  He  had,  however,  distinctly-ac¬ 
cused  several  very  respectable  Fellows  by  name,  of  unequivocal  and  repealed  violations  of 
the  rule  respecting  consultations  The  vole  of  expulsion,  which  immediately  followed 
his  defence,  dissolving  his  connection  with  the  society,  left  those  accusations  (which  had 
been  uttered  in  full  meeting  and  disseminated  by  the  press)  without  am  responsible  author, 
and  therefore,  so  far  as  any  action  of  the  society  was  concerned,  null  and  void.  Having 
good  rea-on  to  believe  that  some  of  them  at  least  were  w  ell  founded,  and  anxious  that  the 
soi iety  should  both  be,  and  appear  to  be,  consistent  and  impailial  in  its  dealings  with  its 
members,  I  determined  to  put  the  charges  iu  the  regular  course  of  investigation.  I  addressed 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


25 


knowledge  of  surgery.  Many  are  distinguished  as  oculists  who  are  not 
as  surgeons  and  physicians.  I  think  the  society  partial  in  the  exercise 
of  its  rights.  The  gentlemen  charged  with  violating  its  by-laws  were 

a  letter  to  the  Counsellors,  stating  that  Drs. - and - had  violated  certain  by-laws  of 

the  society,  and  desiring-  that  such  proceedings  in  relation  to  these  should  be  had,  as  were 
for  such  cases  made  and  provided.  Substantially  in  the  same  manner,  a  few  days  before’ 
had  a  complaint  of  a  similar  kind  been  preferred  against  the  member  who  had  just  been  ex¬ 
pelled. 

But  how  different  was  the  action  of  the  Counsellors  in  the  two  cases  ?  In  one  the  accused 
person  is  presently  summoned  before  the  board  to  answer  to  the  complaint,  and  to  show 
cause  why  he  should  not  be  reported  to  the  society  for  expulsion.  In  the  other,  a  committee 
of  the  Board  is  instructed  to  open  a  captious  and  unnecessary  correspondence  with  the  com¬ 
plainant,  calling  upon  him  to  reinforce  his  word  and  honor  which  were  pledged  on  the  alle¬ 
gations  he  made,  and  before  any  one  had  questioned  them,  and  finally  transferring  the  case 
from  the  Council  Board  to  the  newspaper  prints,  actually  reversed  the  position  of  the  par¬ 
ties,  and  placed  the  individual  who,  under  a  sense  of  duty  to  the  society  and  his  associates, 
had  preferred  the  charges  under  consideration,  in  the  unexpected  attitude  of  a  defendant  be¬ 
fore  the  tribunal  of  public  opinion. 

It  is  the  universal  practice  of  all  judicial  tribunals,  whether  administering  the  laws  of  the 
land,  or  the  code  of  honor,  to  hold  every  individual  within  their  respective  jurisdictions  an¬ 
swerable  to  any  accusation  formally  preferred  against  him  by  a  reputable  member  of  the 
community,  enforced  by  an  oath  in  one  case,  and  by  the  word  of  honor  in  the  other.  By 
no  other  process,  indeed,  can  such  investigations  be  fairly  and  successfully  pursued.  The 
respondent  must  deny  the  charges,  before  the  accused  is  called  on  to  substantiate  his  alle¬ 
gations  by  further  evidence. 

A  prima  facie  case  of  transgression  on  the  part  of  certain  Fellows  was  presented  to  the 
Council,  and  the  only  regular  proceeding  for  them  was  to  communicate  the  fact  to  the  par¬ 
ties  implicated,  and  call  on  them  to  answer  to  the  charge. 

If  they  had  denied  the  facts  alleged  in  the  presentment,  the  Board  should  then  have  called 
on  me  for  proof.  Under  these  circumstances,  I  would  have  done  my  best  to  furnish  it,  and 
to  afford  any  further  assistance  in  the  investigation  which  was  in  my  power. 

But,  in  truth,  if  the  Counsellors  had  only  proceeded  by  right  in  their  first  action  in  the  case, 
there  would  have  been  no  necessity  of  applying  to  me  or  elsewhere  for  evidence.  With 
two  exceptions,  the  allegations  related  to  consultations  with  irregular  practitioners,  and  most 
if  not  all  the  gentlemen  concerned,  as  I  am  well  aware,  instead  of  denying  the  fact,  would 
have  admitted  it  promptly,  and  troubled  the  Council  or  Society  no  further  than  to  have  lis¬ 
tened  to  what  they  had  to  say  by  way  of  explanation  or  apology. 

How  unfounded  and  ungenerous,  then,  the  impressions  which  the  report  is  calculated  to 
produce, — that  the  accusations  were  dismissed  for  want  of  proof,  and  that  I  had  preferred 
charges  against  my  associates  which  I  was  unable  or  unwilling  to  substantiate,  when  the 
Committee  and  the  Counsellors  might  have  had  the  very  best  possible  evidence  of  the  facts 
in  the  confessions  of  the  parties  themselves,  if  they  had  only  to  respond,  as  they  should  have 
done,  if  regardless  of  other  guidance,  they  had  only  followed  their  own  precedent  which  was 
then  scarcely  a  week  old. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  forme  to  say,  that  in  making  the  complaint  referred  to,  I  was  not 
actuated  by  any  vindictive  feelings  ;  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  negative  such  a  sup¬ 
position.  On  the  contrary,  the  most  agreeable  termination  of  the  affair  to  me,  would  have 
been  an  honorable  acquittal  of  all  who  were  implicated,  after  a  full  and  impartial  investiga¬ 
tion.  Most  of  the  individuals  accused,  were,  and  continue  to  be,  among  my  most  intimate 

4 


26 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


among  the  most  distinguished.  I  think  Dr.  Bartlett’s  consultation 
with  Dr.  Kearney  no  more  injurious  to  medical  science,  than  the  con¬ 
sultation  of  Dr.  Peirson  with  Dr.  Strong,  at  Ipswich.  At  the  time 
these  charges  were  made,  I  was  consulting  surgeon  at  the  Mass.  Gen¬ 
eral  Hospital.  When  left  out,  I  applied  to  the  trustees  to  know  the 
reasons,  but  failed  to  obtain  a  knowledge  of  them.  I  was  assured, 
however,  that  my  removal  was  not  from  want  of  professional  ability,  as 
will  appear  from  the  following  letter  : 

To  Dr.  Winslow  Lewis,  Jr. 

Sir  : — The  trustees  of  the  Massachusetts  General  Hospital  have  re¬ 
ceived  your  note,  asking  an  explanation  of  the  reasons  which  induced 
them  to  omit  your  name  from  the  list  of  consulting  surgeons  chosen  at 


and  respected  professional  friends,  and  I  considered  the  investigation  dne  to  their  charac¬ 
ters,  as  well  as  to  the  violated  laws  of  the  Society  A  part  of  them,  I  was  aware,  could  offer 
such  explanations  of  the  conduct  complained  of,  as  would  satisfy  their  associates  that  the 
transgression  was  excusable  j  but  others,  1  believed,  were  destitute  of  any  such  justification 
and  rightly  deserved  the  censure  of  the  society.  We  had  just  inflicted  the  severest  penalty 
of  our  code  upon  one  of  the  youngest  and  least  influential  members,  and  while  the  disciplin¬ 
ary  mood  was  up,  I  was  for  dealing  out  the  same  measure  of  justice  to  all  others,  whether  old 
or  young,  distinguished  or  obscure,  who  had  committed  similar  transgressions.  If  the  Coun¬ 
sellors  see  fit  to  embarrass  or  stifle  all  inquiries  which  touch  the  aristocracy,  theirs  be  the  re¬ 
sponsibility.  I  will  not  silently  bear  the  burden  of  it,  nor  any  part  of  it. 

Gentlemen,  while  1  am  constrained  to  regard  that  part  of  your  report  which  I  have  no¬ 
ticed  above,  as  defective  both  in  principle  and  argument,  and  altogether  unworthy  of  a 
board  composed  of  intelligent  and  independent  gentlemen,  it  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  add 
that  there  is  another  portion  ofit,  in  the  sentiments  and  reasonings  of  which  I  fully  concur.  The 
respectability  and  usefulness  of  the  Massachusetts  Medical  Society  are  not  overrated  in  your 
concluding  remarks.  I  have  ever  felt  it  to  be  an  honor  and  privilege  to  be  associated  with 
so  many  intelligent  and  accomplished  physicians  as  are  to  be  found  in  that  body.  Our 
regulations  and  restraints  are  equally  reasonable  and  salutary,  and  as  you  say,  are  even 
more  beneficial  to  society  at  large,  than  to  the  individuals  associated  and  governed  by  them. 
To  a  fair  and  impartial  application  of  these  regulations  and  restraints,  I  shall  always  hold 
myself  amenable,  and  believe  that  I  can,  in  no  surer  way,  promote  the  objects  and  interests 
of  the  association  than  by  insisting  on  an  uniform  application  of  them  to  all  its  members. 
Self-respect  is  the  best  guarantee  and  security  for  the  favorable  estimation  of  others,  and 
this  can  only  be  maintained  in  individuals  or  societies,  by  a  consciousness  of  justice,  con¬ 
sistency  and  independence  in  sentiment  and  action. 

I  shall  not  participate  in  any  further  agitation  of  this  subject  before  the  public,  but  shall 
consider  it  my  duty  to  present  it  together  with  the  proceedings  of  the  Counsellors  in  regard 
to  it,  for  revision  by  the  society  at  the  next  regular  meeting.  In  the  meantime, 

I  remain  your  obedient  servant, 


WINSLOW  LEWIS,  Jr. 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


27 


the  last  election.  Though  the  trustees  cannot  hold  themselves  respon¬ 
sible  to  individuals  for  an  explanation  of  the  various  motives  which 
may  operate  upon  their  minds,  yet  as  they  are  desirous  of  treating  with 
proper  respect  all  applications  which  are  themselves  respectful,  they 
are  willing  to  state,  in  consequence  of  your  suggestion  that  it  might 
have  an  unfavorable  effect  on  your  professional  reputation,  that  your 
name  was  omitted  from  considerations  altogether  disconnected  from 
your  standing  as  a  surgeon.  The  trustees  feel  no  doubt,  that  your 
skill  and  attainments  in  your  profession  were  such  as  would  qualify 
you  for  the  place,  and  they  hope  that  no  injurious  consequences  will 
follow  to  you  from  the  manner  in  which  they  have  exercised  their  dis¬ 
cretion  in  the  choice  of  officers  of  the  institution  confided  to  their 
care. 

By  order  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Massachusetts  General 
Hospital. 

WM.  GRAY,  Secretary. 

April  19,  1837. 

Drs.  Warren  and  Hayward  were  surgeons  to  the  hospital  at  that 
time.  I  do  not  say  they  were  the  cause  of  my  removal.  Dr.  Doane 
was  appointed  in  my  stead.  Dr.  Peirson  was  also  chosen  a  consulting 
surgeon.  This  appointment  of  consulting  surgeons  out  of  the  city  is 
not  a  solitary  instance.  It  is  not  always  necessary  that  all  the  sur¬ 
geons  should  be  present. 

By  a  subsequent  vote  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society  I  was  absolved 
from  all  censure.*'  Dr.  Peirson  at  the  time  of  Dr.  Bartlett’s  prosecu¬ 
tion  presented  the  case.  He  was  chairman  of  the  committee  for  that 
purpose.  The  thing  originated  in  the  Boston  Medical  Association. 

Dr.  Bartlett  said  he  had  consulted  with  an  irregular  practitioner, 
and  would  again.  I  think  the  influence  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society 
unpropitious  to  the  free  expression  of  opinion  by  younger  members. 
It  is  injurious  to  a  physician  to  have  it  known  he  cannot  obtain  con¬ 
sultation.  The  by-laws  of  Mass.  Medical  Society  practically  annul 
the  degree  of  Harvard  Medical  College.  The  Mass.  Medical  Society 


*  At  the  request  of  Dr.  Lewis,  the  vote  is  appended. 

“  Oil  the  subject  of  the  report  of  the  counsellors  on  violation  of  by-laws  which  was  pub¬ 
lished  in  October, 

“  Voted,  That,  in  the  opinion  of  the  society,  the  Fellow,  referred  to  as  the  gentleman  who 
had  preferred  charges  against  certain  members  of  this  society,  is  not  subject  to  censure  for 
any  thing  he  has  done  or  omitted  to  do  in  the  premises.” 


28 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


I  think,  tends  to  prevent  quackery  by  its  influence  upon  community. 
A  combination  of  men  can  effect  more  for  this  than  men  singly.  The 
society  publishes  many  valuable  works.  These  are  distributed  gratu¬ 
itously  among  the  Fellows.  I  think  these  publications  have  done  much 
for  the  public  good,  and  the  promotion  of  health.  The  member  is 
amply  remunerated  for  his  fee  of  membership,  by  the  gift  of  a  book 
and  a  good  dinner.  The  society  exerts  a  salutary  influence  by  causing 
a  knowledge  of  remedies  to  be  diffused  among  its  members. 

Cross-examined  by  Dexter.  I  do  not  know  that  an  act  of  incorpo¬ 
ration  gives  the  Mass.  Medical  Society  any  more  power  to  refuse  con¬ 
sultation  than  if  it  was  a  voluntary  association.  I  do  not  understand 
that  a  diploma  from  Harvard  College  confers  a  right  to  consult  with 
any  who  may  refuse  so  to  do.  The  officers  of  the  Mass.  Medical 
Society  are  generally  the  most  distinguished  practitioners. 

Here  Mr.  Dexter  said  he  wished  permission  to  read  a  note  from  one 
of  the  trustees  of  the  Mass.  General  Hospital,  which  would  remove  the 
impression,  that  Dr.  Lewis  was  displaced  from  the  office  of  consulting 
surgeon  through  the  influence  of  any  of  the  Fellows  of  the  Mass.  Med¬ 
ical  Society. 

Hallett  objected  to  its  being  read. 

Dexter  said  it  was  important,  and  appealed  to  the  Committee. 
Ruled  to  be  read. 

Dear  Sir  : — In  regard  to  the  omission  of  the  trustees  of  the  Mass. 
General  Hospital  to  re-elect  Dr.  W.  Lewis  to  the  office  of  consulting 
surgeon,  I  am  free  to  say,  they  acted  from  their  own  sense  of  propriety 
and  expediency,  and  not  from  the  suggestion  of  any  member  of  the 
faculty.  On  the  contrary,  I  well  recollect  having  previously  had  a 
conversation  with  you  on  the  subject,  in  which  you  staled  it  to  be  the 
opinion  of  Dr.  Warren  and  yourself,  that  it  was  best  to  re-elect  that 
gentleman.  I  named  this  circumstance  to  the  board,  before  we  pro¬ 
ceeded  to  a  choice.  The  result  showed  that  they  disagreed  with  those 
members  of  the  faculty  who  alone  were  interested  in  the  matter. 

Very  sincerely,  yours, 


Kilby  Street ,  30th  March. 
Geo.  Hayward,  M.  D. 


GEO.  BOND. 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


29 


Dr.  Lewis  continued  his  testimony.  Have  heard  that  Mr.  Elliot  rose 
in  the  board  of  trustees,  and  expressed  a  wish  that  he,  (Dr.  Lewis,) 
might  be  removed  because  he  put  forth  charges  which  he  would  not  or 
could  not  substantiate. 

There  is  not  a  comparison  between  Dr.  Peirson’s  consultation  with 
Dr.  Strong,  and  Dr.  Bartlett’s  intercourse  with  Williams.  Dr.  Strong 
was  a  graduate  of  the  Berkshire  Medical  Institution.  There  are  gra¬ 
dations  in  the  violation  of  the  by-laws,  and  also  of  censure  for  their  in¬ 
fraction,  viz.  :  Suspension  of  the  privilege  of  voting  for  one  year, 
reprimand,  and  in  aggravated  cases,  expulsion.  Dr.  Peirson  expressed 
his  willingness  to  submit  to  the  society’s  discipline,  for  having  violated 
its  by-law  by  consulting  with  Dr.  Strong.  Dr.  Doane  was  a  surgeon 
in  the  United  States  Navy.  Expulsion  is  a  common  transaction  in 
other  medical  societies.  Dr.  Bartlett’s  expulsion  was  just,  according 
to  the  by-laws. 

Dr.  Bugard  sworn  and  examined  by  Mr.  Hallett.  I  am  a  graduate 
from  Harvard  Medical  College,  and  a  member  of  the  Mass.  Medical 
Society.  I  joined  it  to  obtain  consultation  with  its  members,  which  I 
could  not  enjoy  without.  I  think  a  young  man  would  meet  with  in¬ 
convenience  in  his  practice,  if  not  a  member. 

The  counsel  for  the  memorialist  said  he  should  close  his  evidence 
here  for  the  present.  He  had  now  introduced  the  testimony  he  intend¬ 
ed  to  offer,  so  far  as  the  case  had  proceeded.  He  should  reserve  the 
right,  however,  to  offer  additional  testimony,  in  case  it  should  be 
judged  necessary  to  rebut  the  evidence  offered  by  the  respondents. 

Mr.  Thomas  B.  Curtis,  of  Boston,  was  sworn  and  examined  on  the 
part  of  the  respondents.  I  have  for  several  years  been  a  trustee  of  the 
Mass.  General  Hospital.  I  deny,  on  behalf  of  the  trustees  and  myself, 
the  imputation  of  some  of  the  testimony  I  have  heard  this  evening. 
No  undue  influence  has  been  exerted  on  the  trustees  of  the  hospital, 
by  members  of  the  medical  profession,  directly,  or  indirectly,  during 
the  four  years  I  have  been  connected  with  that  institution.  Dr.  Doane 
was  an  assistant  surgeon  in  the  Mediterranean  under  Com.  Decatur,  in 
the  war  of  1812,  and  in  the  same  ship  with  myself.  On  my  nomina¬ 
tion,  he  was  elected  to  the  office  of  consulting  surgeon  in  the  Hos¬ 
pital.  I  have  known  Dr.  D.  to  perform  many  important  operations. 
Dr.  Peirson’s  election  was  not  influenced  by  the  part  he  took  in  Dr. 
Bartlett’s  trial.  Physicians  are  appointed  to  the  offices  of  consulting 
physicians  and  surgeons  on  the  ground  of  their  general  reputation. 
Adjourned. 


30 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


April  4,  1839. 

Dr.  Briggs,  of  Marblehead,  sworn  and  examined  by  Mr.  Dexter. 
I  am  a  physician  of  Marblehead,  and  am  well  acquainted  with  Dr. 
Bartlett.  He  commenced  business  in  Marblehead — practised  about 
three  years,  and  then  removed  to  Boston.  One  case  only  has  occurred 
in  which  I  have  declined  to  practise  with  Dr.  B.  I  declined  not  solely 
nor  principally  because  he  was  expelled  from  the  Mass.  Medical  Soci¬ 
ety,  but  for  other  reasons.  I  can  assign  those  reasons  if  required. 

Dexter.  We  are  not  particular  about  the  reasons  at  present.  If 
the  counsel  for  Dr.  Bartlett  wishes  to  know  them,  he  is  at  liberty  to 
ask.  Do  you  remember  being  called  to  a  boy  badly  injured  by  a  horse, 
mentioned  by  Mr.  Orne  ? 

Ans.  I  do.  It  was  a  case  of  fracture  of  the  skull,  and  was  one  in 
which  I  thought  it  highly  important,  to  obtain  the  advice  of  an  experi¬ 
enced  surgeon.  A  messenger  was  accordingly  despatched,  in  great 
haste,  for  Dr.  Peirson,  of  Salem,  there  being,  in  my  opinion,  less  risk 
to  my  patient  in  postponing  the  operation,  if  found  necessary,  till  Dr. 
P’s  arrival,  than  in  performing  it  without  competent  assistance.  I  did 
not  call  in  Dr.  Bartlett  for  reasons  before  alluded  to ;  indeed  I  did  not 
know  he  was  in  town,  and  had  quite  forgotten  that  he  had  a  set  of 
trepanning  instruments,  as  I  had  not  seen  them  for  a  long  time. 
When  Dr.  B.  commenced  practice,  I  favored  him  and  associated  with 
him.  This  I  continued  to  do  so  long  as  I  could  conscientiously. 

Cross-examined  by  3Ir.  Hallett.  I  have  signed  the  by-laws  of  the 
Mass.  Medical  Society,  and  consider  them  binding.  I  would  consult 
with  any  practitioner  if  life  was  in  danger. 

Hallett.  Is  it  safe,  in  cases  of  fracture  of  the  skull,  to  postpone  an 
operation  any  considerable  period  of  time? 

Ans.  In  cases  of  the  nature  of  the  boy,  a  delay  of  an  hour  or  two 
is  seldom  productive  of  any  injury,  and  is  sometimes  highly  expedient 
when  the  vital  powers  are  greatly  prostrated,  and  life  nearly  extinct,  as 
was  the  fact  in  the  present  instance.  The  safe  rule  is  to  be  governed 
by  the  circumstances  of  the  case. 

Hallett.  Did  you  consult  with  Dr.  Bartlett  while  resident  in  Mar¬ 
blehead  ? 

Ans.  I  did,  previously  to  his  expulsion  from  the  Medical  Society. 

Hallett.  How  do  you  regulate  consultations  in  view  of  the  by-laws? 

Ans.  I  consult  on  my  own  responsibility.  The  society  is  compe¬ 
tent  to  determine  whether  I  violate  its  laws. 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


31 


Dexter.  Do  you  think  Dr.  Bartlett  suffered  in  his  practice,  in  Mar¬ 
blehead,  in  consequence  of  his  expulsion  from  the  Medical  Society? 

Ans.  The  expulsion  of  Dr.  Bartlett  from  the  Mass.  Medical  Society 
has  not,  in  my  opinion,  had  much  influence  on  his  business  in  Mar¬ 
blehead.  Before  he  left  that  town  for  Boston,  his  practice  was  not 
very  lucrative.  He  assured  me,  that  his  expenditures  for  the  last  three 
years  had  exceeded  his  receipts  by  not  less  than  fifteen  hundred  or  two 
thousand  dollars.  He  is  certainly  doing  a  better  business  than  that  at 
present.  The  inference  is  therefore  perfectly  fair,  that  his  expulsion 
has  been  beneficial  rather  than  injurious  to  his  pecuniary  interests, 
although  I  cannot  specify  any  instance  in  confirmation  of  this  opinion. 

Hallett.  Would  you  assist  Dr.  Bartlett  in  a  case  where  life  was 
involved,  if  requested? 

Ans.  Yes.  To  save  the  life  of  a  fellow  creature,  I  would  aid  an 
irregular  practitioner,  or  even  a  quack.  I  should  not,  by  so  doing, 
violate  the  spirit  of  our  by-laws;  nor  do  I  believe  the  society  would 
viewr  it  as  a  violation. 

Dexter.  In  a  case  like  that  of  the  boy,  should  you  call  in  less  skil¬ 
ful  assistance  than  Dr.  Peirson,  if  such  could  be  procured? 

Ans.  I  should  not. 

Bartlett.  Do  you  recognise  this  case  of  instruments  as  the  one  I 
once  presented  for  your  inspection  in  Marblehead? 

Ans.  I  do  not  identify  them,  but  presume  they  are  the  same  I  had 
formerly  seen. 

Hallett.  Does  the  case  contain  the  instruments  usually  employed 
in  trepanning? 

Ans.  I  believe  it  does. 

Mrs.  Plummer  was  offered  to  be  sworn,  by  the  respondents.  Mr. 
Hallett  objected  to  her  examination. 

Dexter.  We  wish  to  show,  that  Dr.  Bartlett’s  intercourse  with 
Williams  was,  in  the  language  of  the  by-law,  an  aggravated  case.  To 
prove  this,  we  intend  to  show  that  Williams  was  a  rapacious,  merce¬ 
nary  quack  ;  and  to  establish  this,  we  produce  witnesses,  of  whom  the 
person  on  the  stand  is  one. 

Ruled  to  admit  the  testimony. 

Mrs.  Abigail  Plummer  sworn  and  examined  by  Dexter.  I  am  stay¬ 
ing  at  present  in  Boston.  I  came  to  this  city  from  Salem.  I  have  no 
property,  and  am  totally  blind.  I  have  been  blind  three  years.  I  put 
myself  under  the  care  of  Dr.  Williams  in  hope  of  obtaining  my  sight. 
I  was  induced  to  go  to  him  from  the  accounts  read  to  me  in  the 


32 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


“Morning  Post”  and  “  Boston  Pilot,”  by  a  friend.  The  family  with 
whom  I  had  long  lived  as  a  cook,  sent  me  up  to  Dr.  Williams.  I  had 
been  three  years  under  the  care  of  Dr.  Peirson,  who  charged  me  noth¬ 
ing,  and  also  had  the  advice  of  Drs.  Reynolds  and  Jeffries,  at  the  Eye 
and  Ear  Infirmary. 

When  I  first  went  to  Dr.  Williams,  he  inquired  how  much  money  I 
had,  and  if  the  people  I  lived  with  were  rich  or  poor?  He  said  he 
supposed  my  physicians  had  told  me  the  nerves  of  my  eyes  were  dead. 
He  said  they  were  not,  and  that  the  medicine  he  gave  me  would  restore 
my  sight.  I  asked  him  his  charge.  He  said  I  must  pay  050  down, 
and  050  more  when  cured.  He  said  he  could  cure  me.  I  did  not  feel 
able  to  pay  the  sum,  and  asked  him  if  he  would  not  take  025  down. 
He  replied,  of  course  I  set  more  by  my  money  than  my  sight,  and  he 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with  me.  I  told  him  I  had  but  843;  that  I 
had  a  child  to  support,  and  could  lay  by  but  little.  He  said  he  would 
not  take  less  than  050,  and  I  might  have  a  week  to  make  up  my  mind ; 
if  I  did  not  come  in  that  time,  I  need  not  come  at  all.  I  went  home, 
and  returned  the  next  Saturday  with  the  money,  which  I  gave  him. 
After  1  paid  him  the  money,  he  gave  me  some  medicine  in  a  bottle, 
and  I  signed  a  paper  promising  to  pay  him  050  more,  if  cured.  The 
paper  was  read  to  me,  and  Peter  Grant  signed  it  with  me.  I  then 
went  back  to  Salem,  and  had  the  medicine  put  into  my  eyes  three 
times  a  day.  Williams  charged  me  not  to  let  any  physician  see  the 
medicine.  He  told  me  that  in  six  weeks  I  should  be  restored  to  sight. 
I  was  under  his  care  and  treatment  three  months.  I  went  up  to  see 
him  six  times.  I  met  Dr.  Bartlett  at  Williams’s  room  on  my  fourth 
visit.  When  I  went  in,  he  was  engaged,  and  said  he  would  introduce 
me  to  his  friend  Dr.  Bartlett,  of  Marblehead,  who  would  tell  me  of  the 
cures  he  (Williams)  had  effected.  Dr.  B.  examined  my  eyes;  he  said 
mine  was  a  case  he  would  not  like  to  undertake  himself,  but  if  any  one 
could  cure  me,  it  was  Williams.  This  gave  me  courage.  There  was 
a  woman  in  the  room  called  Hannah.  Dr.  B.  said  a  cataract  was  com¬ 
ing  off  her  eyes,  and  would  be  off  in  two  or  three  days.  I  do  not 
know  that  Dr.  B.  had  any  connexion  with  Williams.  The  medicine 
I  used  made  my  eyes  smart  a  short  time,  and  did  me  neither  good  nor 
harm.  Williams  always  assured  me  my  case  was  going  on  well.  He 
told  me  of  Lydia  Saunders,  a  pupil  in  the  Blind  Asylum,  whom  Dr. 
Reynolds  had  given  over,  and  whom  he  had  helped  so  that  she  walked 
out  that  morning.  At  the  end  of  two  months,  Williams  said  my  eyes 
were  doing  well,  and  he  should  expect  the  other  050  sent  on  to  him  at 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


33 


Providence.  He  told  me  the  cataracts  were  growing  thinner,  though 
I  could  not  see  the  light  of  a  candle  at  any  time.  He  was  sometimes 
cross.  Dr.  Bartlett  said  if  I  had  put  myself  under  Williams’s  care  at 
the  time  I  first  lost  my  sight,  it  might  have  been  saved.  Williams  paid 
me  but  little  attention  when  I  called  on  him.  I  did  not  let  any  phy¬ 
sician  know  I  was  going  to  put  myself  under  Williams’s  care.  Dr. 
Peirson  told  me  at  first,  he  feared  he  could  not  save  my  sight.  At  the 
end  of  four  weeks  he  pronounced  my  case  incurable.  I  went  to  Dr. 
Reynolds  after  I  had  lost  the  sight  of  one  eye.  He  told  me  had  I  come 
before,  he  could  have  done  nothing  more  than  Dr.  Peirson  had  done. 
I  remained  in  the  family  with  whom  I  had  lived  one  year  after  I  be¬ 
came  blind.  Dr.  Peirson  aided  me  in  getting  into  the  asylum.  Benev¬ 
olent  friends  in  Salem  procured  me  a  loom — I  learnt  to  weave  malts, 
and  can  now  earn  something  for  my  support. 

Cross-examined,  by  llallett.  I  heard  about  the  Medical  Society 
when  I  first  thought  of  putting  myself  under  Williams’s  care.  I  did 
not  pay  him  any  more  money.  Dr.  Bartlett  examined  Hannah,  and 
said  the  medicine  was  taking  the  cataract  off. 

Examined  by  Dexter.  I  was  totally  blind  when  I  put  myself  under 
Williams’s  care.  I  have  been  blind  three  years  last  February.  My 
sight  began  to  fail  in  August.  In  December  I  could  see  but  little. 
After  that  my  sight  failed  entirely. 

Mr.  George  D.  Dutton ,  of  Boston,  sworn  and  examined.  I  am  en¬ 
gaged  in  mercantile  business.  I  have  been  afflicted  with  a  disease  of 
the  eyes  since  1828.  In  1834  Dr.  Williams  came  to  Boston.  On  his 
arrival  I  did  not  choose  to  go  near  him,  which  some  of  my  friends 
urged  me  to  do.  1  subsequently  heard  of  several  cases  which  had 
been  under  his  care,  which  induced  me  to  go  and  see  him.  He  said 
my  case  was  a  very  simple  one,  and  that  he  could  cure  me.  His  first 
question  was,  what  was  my  business.  He  then  asked  me  whether  I 
had  ever  failed,  and  what  I  was  now  worth.  He  also  asked  me,  how 
many  clerks  I  kept,  and  many  other  questions  which  I  thought  strange 
and  impertinent.  He  said  he  would  take  me  under  his  care  at  ten 
guineas  per  month,  for  two  months,  and  that  if  cured,  I  must  pay  him 
a  hundred  dollars  more.  I  replied,!  had  rather  pay  a  larger  sum  when 
cured.  He  said  those  were  his  terms,  and  I  could  do  as  I  pleased. 
Thinking  them  exorbitant  I  left  him.  My  eyes  gradually  growing 
worse,  I  visited  him  again  in  the  course  of  one  or  two  weeks.  He 
asked  me,  what  I  thought  my  eyes  were  worth,  intimating  thereby, 
that  I  valued  my  money  more  than  my  sight.  I  had  been  told  of  one 

5 


34 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


or  two  cases  of  successful  treatment,  which  induced  me  to  accede  to 
his  terms.  On  my  fourth  visit  he  held  up  a  glass  and  examined  my 
eyes  at  the  distance  of  about  three  feet.  He  also  used  a  glass  in  the 
same  way  on  my  first  visit.  I  paid  him  one  hundred  dollars  and  he 
gave  me  medicine  in  a  vial.  After  he  had  received  the  money,  he  re¬ 
quired  me  to  sign  a  paper  agreeing  not  to  show  the  medicine  to  any 
physician  or  apothecary,  nor  to  leave  it  exposed  in  my  house ;  and 
further,  that  I  should  speak  well  of  him  if  I  was  cured,  and  say  noth¬ 
ing' against  him  if  I  was  not.  He  said  there  was  no  manner  of  doubt 
that  he  could  cure  me. 

I  used  the  medicine  several  weeks  according  to  directions  without 
benefit.  I  told  Williams  the  medicine  hurt  me,  and  I  thought  he  had 
imposed  upon  me.  At  first  from  its  dilating  the  pupil,  I  could  see  a 
little  better,  and  felt  encouraged  that  would  benefit  me.  But  I  soon 
found  my  mistake.  The  vessels  of  the  cornea  became  more  inflamed 
and  the  application  of  the  medicine  was  painful.  I  told  Williams  that 
I  needed  the  use  of  the  lancet  in  the  region  of  the  eye.  I  went  to  Dr. 
Jeffries  and  was  bled.  He  did  not  know  I  had  been  under  Wil¬ 
liams’s  care.  I  afterwards  informed  Williams  of  this,  and  he  blamed 
me  for  not  coming  to  him  to  be  bled. 

Cross-examined,  by  Hallett.  I  had  consulted  physicians  before  I 
went  to  Williams,  but  had  not  exhausted  medical  resources.  Wil¬ 
liams  said  he  could  cure  me,  without  my  laying  aside  business.  I  sent 
for  him  at  one  time,  but  he  prescribed  nothing.  As  an  inducement  to 
employ  him,  Williams  said,  I  should  follow  him  to  England,  if  I  did 
not  take  him  now.  At  his  rooms  he  showed  me  a  young  man  whom 
he  said  he  had  cured.  This,  with  other  cases  of  which  I  had  heard, 
gave  me  great  encouragement.  One  case  which  had  been  pronounced 
a  cure,  I  afterward  ascertained  was  only  partial  relief.  I  received 
no  benefit  from  the  treatment  of  my  case  by  Williams. 

Dr.  Edward  Reynolds,  of  Boston,  sicorn  and  examined.  I  have 
given  much  attention  to  diseases  of  the  eye.  I  am  connected  with  the 
Eye  and  Ear  Infirmary  in  this  city.  There  are  about  600  cases  annu¬ 
ally.  For  ten  or  twelve  years  I  have  been  in  almost  daily  attendance. 
I  paid  much  attention  to  this  subject  in  Europe  the  most  part  of  one 
year.  I  have  a  distinct  recollection  of  frequently  making  such  remarks 
as  are  stated  by  Mrs.  Plummer  to  have  been  made  in  reference  to  Dr. 
I’eirson’s  treatment  of  her  case.  I  frequently  had  patients  who  had 
been  under  his  care,  and  presume  I  made  the  remarks  to  Mrs.  P. 

Some  three  or  four  weeks  after  Dr.  Williams  arrived  in  this 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


35 


city,  a  man  from  Vermont  came  to  my  room.  I  saw  he  had  a 
cataract.  He  asked  me  if  I  could  do  any  thing  to  help  or  cure  him. 
I  told  him  the  only  relief  he  could  obtain  would  be  by  an  opera¬ 
tion.  He  said  he  did  not  like  to  undergo  that,  and  that  he  had  been 
to  see  the  celebrated  oculist  to  the  king  of  France,  who  said  he  could 
cure  him  in  one  month,  or  perhaps  two,  without  an  operation.  But, 
said  he,  I  did  not  like  his  ways.  He  asked  me  what  was  my  business, 
and  how  large  my  farm  was,  and  how  much  money  I  had?  He  said 
if  I  would  pay  him  100  dollars  down,  he  would  doctor  me  one  month; 
if  he  did  not  cure  me  in  that  time,  he  would  doctor  me  another  month 
gratis;  but  if  I  was  then  cured,  he  should  expect  me  to  pay  him  100 
dollars  more.  I  thought  it  was  a  good  deal  of  money  to  pay,  and  I 
have  come  to  ask  you  whether  I  had  better  go  to  him.  I  gave  the 
man  my  advice  and  he  returned  home.  I  have  not  seen  him  nor  heard 
from  him  since. 

Shortly  after  this  a  gentleman  brought  a  patient  to  my  house  wholly 
blind.  He  had  been  so  17  years.  The  internal  and  external  parts  of 
the  eye  were  literally  glued  together.  In  consequence  of  this  affliction 
t lie  person  had  become  dependent,  upon  the  town  for  support.  The 
gentleman  with  him  asked  me  if  I  thought  he  could  be  cured.  He  said 
he  had  called  on  Dr.  Williams,  who  said  he  could  cure  him,  but  must 
be  paid  100  dollars  down.  This  gentleman  said  a  sum  of  money  had 
been  raised  to  defray  his  expenses  while  here.  If  there  was  any  pros¬ 
pect  of  a  cure  being  effected,  the  money  would  be  cheerfully  devoted 
to  that  object ;  but  if  not,  it  would  be  preferable  to  retain  it  for  the 
benefit  of  the  man. 

Before  I  had  done  conversing  with  these  persons,  two  others  came 
in,  one  totally  deaf.  They  said  they  had  been  to  see  Dr.  Williams, 
who  assured  them  he  could  cure  the  man  of  his  deafness;  but  he  must 
have  50  dollars  now,  and  50  more  at  the  end  of  two  months.  This 
man  was  a  case  which  I  had  seen  seven  years  previously,  and  he  had 
then  been  deaf  many  years.  I  at  that  time  pronounced  him  incurable. 

I  had  not  done  with  this  man  when  another  person  came  in,  a  pa¬ 
tient  of  my  own,  who  gave  me  a  similar  account.  He  said,  “  I  have 
been  to  see  Dr.  Williams,  who  told  me  that  before  he  did  any  thing 
for  me,  I  must  pay  him  100  dollars.  I  replied,  that  we  yankees  thought 
it  was  best  to  pay  when  the  work  was  done.  I  told  him,  however,  that 
I  would  visit  him  for  thirty  days,  and  leave  one  dollar  each  day  on  his 
desk.  If,  on  the  expiration  of  that  time,  I  was  better,  I  would  give 
him  100  dollars,  and  if  he  cured  me,  I  would  give  him  $200  more. 


36 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


Upon  this  he  turned  me  out  of  his  room.”  The  man  said  he  had  come 
to  ask  me  if  I  thought  he  had  better  put  himself  under  Williams’s  care. 
I  have  had  many  inform  me  that  they  had  been  under  Williams’s 
treatment.  The  only  certain  remedy  for  disease  of  the  nasal  duct,  is 
mechanical.  Williams  treated  this  with  the  same  applications  he  used 
in  diseases  of  the  eye.  The  application  of  the  extract  of  stramonium 
and  belladonna  dilates  the  pupil  and  increases  the  field  of  vision  for  a 
time.  The  effect  of  this  application  sometimes  continues  one,  two,  or 
three  days,  but  never  permanently.  I  am  not  aware  that  the  applica¬ 
tion  is  injurious  to  the  eye ;  it  does  neither  good  nor  harm.  There 
is  no  cure  for  a  complete  amaurosis;  i.  e.  where  the  nerves  of  the  eye 
are  destroyed.  The  application  of  moxa  cannot  cure  such  a  case. 

Cross-examined  by  Hallctt.  The  individuals  in  the  cases  referred 
to  went  home  without  treatment.  I  knew  they  were  incurable,  and 
told  them  so.  The  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  diseases  of  the  eye  has 
about  arrived  at  perfection.  I  think  it  probable  that  not  much  will  be 
added  to  a  knowledge  of  their  treatment.  I  do  not  mean  to  be  under¬ 
stood  that  I  think  I  have  acquired  a  knowledge  of  all  that  may  be 
known;  but  I  mean  to  say,  that  I  think  about  all  in  relation  to  this 
subject  is  known  that  can  be  known.  Williams’s  application  would 
irritate  the  organ,  and  do  no  good.  Empiricism  has  more  charms 
with  many  than  regular  practice.  Some  men  will  place  implicit  con¬ 
fidence  in  quacks,  who  have  not  a  very  high  opinion  of  regular  phy¬ 
sicians.  I  account  for  this  from  that  tendency  in  poor  human  nature 
to  love  self-deception  and  the  marvellous. 

The  Mass.  Medical  Society  did  not  interfere  officially  with  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  Dr.  Williams.  It  gave  itself  no  concern  about  him.  I  can  tell 
by  examination  when  the  nerve  of  the  eye  is  dead.  In  a  fair  light  we 
can  see  into  the  bottom  of  the  eye  as  easily  as  to  look  into  a  mirror. 
Numbers  of  the  patients  of  the  Eye  Infirmary  left  it,  and  put  themselves 
under  the  care  of  Williams.  They  paid  him  their  money,  obtained  no 
relief,  and  finally  came  back.  Some  of  them  are  there  now.  Ad¬ 
journed. 

April  6,  1839. 

Committee  met  according  to  adjournment. 

Mr.  Dexter,  for  the  respondents,  said  he  had  a  mass  of  evidence 
proving  the  rapacity  and  impositions  of  Williams,  which  it  was  his  in¬ 
tention  to  present,  had  time  permitted.  Dr.  Bartlett  had  occupied  four 
or  five  sittings  with  his  testimony,  and  it  now  appeared,  that  the  Legisla¬ 
ture  would  rise  so  soon  as  to  afford  the  Mass.  Medical  Society  but  one 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


37 


sitting  (if  allowed)  in  addition  to  the  last,  to  put  in  rebutting  evidence. 
This  obviously  placed  the  society  at  disadvantage,  as  in  order  to  meet 
the  various  points  of  Dr.  B’s  charges,  he  (Dexter,)  must  greatly  con¬ 
dense  the  testimony  he  proposed  to  submit.  As  to  another  meeting, 
he  trusted  the  committee  would  grant  it  if  possible.  To  leave  the  in¬ 
vestigation  at  its  present  stage,  would  be  to  place  the  Medical  Society 
in  an  unpleasant  position.  Certain  grave  charges,  affecting  its  charac¬ 
ter,  had  been  preferred,  to  refute  which  there  was  ample  testimony, 
but  if  this  testimony  was  not  received  now,  the  society  would  rest  un¬ 
der  the  odium  of  these  aspersions  until  the  next  Legislature.  Should 
another  sitting  be  determined  on,  he  would  waive  further  important 
evidence  concerning  Williams,  and  confine  himself  to  other  partic¬ 
ulars. 

Dr.  Bartlett  concurred  with  Mr.  Dexter  in  expressing  a  hope,  that 
the  Medical  Society  might  be  indulged  with  another  hearing. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Greene  : 

Voted ,  That  another  meeting  shall  be  held  on  Monday  evening  next, 
at  which  nothing  further  concerning  Dr.  Williams  and  his  character 
shall  be  introduced.  Adjourned. 


April  8,  1839. 

Committee  met  according  to  adjournment. 

Dr.  James  Jackson,  of  Boston,  sworn  and  examined.  I  have  been 
in  practice  of  medicine  since  1800.  In  18C2  I  was  elected  a  Fellow 
of  the  Massachusetts  Medical  Society.  The  society  had  then  existed 
about  twenty  years.  Originally  it  was  designed  to  be  a  select  society, 
and  its  numbers  were  limited  to  seventy,  embracing  the  most  eminent 
in  the  profession.  These  members  living  in  different  parts  of  the 
Commonwealth,  could  not  attend  the  meetings  of  the  society  so  con¬ 
stantly  as  its  object  required,  consequently  that  interest  necessary  to 
its  prosperity  flagged.  The  original  act  of  incorporation  being  found 
insufficient  in  its  operations  to  effect  the  purposes  of  medical  science, 
some  changes  were  thought  necessary.  In  1803  the  society  petitioned 
the  Legislature  for  certain  alterations  in  its  charter.  The  act  contain- 

O 

ing  these  alterations  was  prepared  by  the  late  Dr.  Treadwell  and  Chief 
Justice  Sewall.  It  was  presented  by  them  to  the  society  and  approv¬ 
ed.  By  that  act,  the  privileges  of  the  society  from  being  limited  to  a 
few,  were  extended  to  all  regularly  educated  physicians  in  the  Com¬ 
monwealth.  All  who  were  licensed  by  censors,  and  all  the  medical 
graduates  at  Harvard  College,  were  entitled  to  its  benefits.  Subse- 


38 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


quently,  it  was  provided,  that  all  physicians  coming  from  other  states 
and  countries  might  become  members  of  the  society  by  making  appli¬ 
cation  and  presenting  their  credentials,  if  those  were  satisfactory.  The 
object  of  the  society  was,  to  enable  the  public  to  distinguish  the  regu¬ 
larly  educated  from  such  as  were  not.  The  terms  of  membership 
were  such,  that  all  respectable  physicians  might  avail  of  them  if  they 
chose. 

It  was  feared  at  first  that  physicians  would  not  be  fond  of  joining  us, 
because  they  would  obtain  no  personal  benefit.  To  obviate  this,  and 
as  an  inducement  to  join  the  society,  a  clause  was  inserted  in  the  act 
referred  to,  exempting  physicians  from  the  performance  of  military 
duty.  In  1804  the  by-law  was  passed  prohibiting  consultation  with 
those  who  should  hereafter  enter  the  profession  without  becoming  li¬ 
centiates  of  the  society,  or  doctors  of  medicine  of  Harvard  College. 
This  law  was  against  the  interests  of  its  Fellows,  but  promotive  of  the 
public  good. 

The  labor  of  carrying  on  the  business  of  the  society  has  mostly  de¬ 
volved  on  members  in  this  city  and  vicinity,  and  this  rather  from 
necessity  than  choice.  The  labor  imposed  upon  the  officers  of  the 
society  I  should  consider  more  than  an  equivalent  for  the  honor  con¬ 
ferred  by  office.  A  principal  object  of  the  society  is  to  add  to  the 
stock  of  medical  knowledge,  and  to  diffuse  it  to  the  world.  It  has 
effected  much  good  in  this  way.  About  thirty  years  ago  a  paper  on 
diseases  of  the  heart,  by  Dr.  Warren,  was  published.  It  explained  the 
subject  better  than  any  English  writer  I  had  seen.  A  very  valuable 
paper  by  the  late  Dr.  Fisher,  of  Beverly,  on  worms  and  epileptic  fits, 
was  also  published.  In  1808  a  committee  was  chosen  to  prepare  a 
report  on  vaccination,  which  was  given  to  the  public.  At  this  time 
the  public  had  gone  so  far  as  to  place  confidence  in  vaccination,  but 
were  not  aware  that  those  who  received  it,  in  some  cases,  were  still 
exposed  to  disease.  The  committee,  in  publishing  their  report,  ap¬ 
prized  the  public  of  the  fact,  that,  in  a  future  day,  they  might  not  lose 
confidence  in  vaccination  if  a  case  of  small  pox  should  occur  in  one 
vaccinated.  [In  answer  to  a  question  here  by  Mr.  Dexter,  Dr.  .T.  said, 
a  report  on  typhoid  fever,  of  upwards  of  100  pages,  was  compiled  from 
300  cases  in  the  Mass.  General  Hospital,  and  published  in  the  same 
way.]  The  society  has,  for  eight  or  nine  years,  caused  some  valuable 
medical  work  to  be  published,  and  furnished  a  copy  to  each  Fellow 
gratuitously.  The  advantage  of  this  has  been,  in  calling  the  attention 
of  the  profession  to  one  subject  at  the  same  time.  I  would  also  men- 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


39 


tion,  that  a  report  on  spotted  fever,  and  a  history  of  the  cholera,  com¬ 
piled  by  a  committee  of  five,  were  also  published  at  the  expense  of  the 
society.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Pharmacopceia,  a  useful  work. 

I  may  here  mention  what  the  society  has  done  about  foreign  leeches. 
The  amount  of  them  used  by  us  is  very  large.  A  single  apothecary 
has  had  50,000  at  a  time.  To  make  them  more  plenty  and  cheap,  the 
society  desired  to  promote  their  propagation  in  this  country.  They 
therefore  offered  a  premium  of  $500  to  any  person  who  should  be  able 
to  effect  this  object.  The  society  likewise  offered  a  premium  of  $50 
for  the  best  dissertation  on  the  evil  effects  of  alcohol  upon  the  human 
system,  and  obtained  one  on  the  subject  from  Dr.  Sweetser. 

Three  prize  dissertations  by  individuals  of  the  profession  have  also 
been  published.  They  were  presented  for  the  JBoylston  prize.  While 
one  only  could  receive  the  prize,  the  others  were  considered  so  valuable 
that  the  Boylston  committee,  to  whom  they  were  presented,  determined 
to  publish  them,  which  was  done  at  the  expense  probably  of  about  1000 
dollars.  This  expense  was  defrayed  by  a  munificent  Fellow  of  the 
society.  A  copy  of  these  was  sent  gratuitously  to  every  physician  and 
medical  student  in  the  State.  These  things  have  been  done  for  the 
benefit  of  medical  science,  though  publishing  books  was  not  the  pri¬ 
mary  object  of  the  society.  I  think  I  am  safe  in  saying,  that  in  every 
village  in  our  Commonwealth  may  be  found  a  better  educated  physician 
than  one  in  twenty  of  those  practising  when  I  entered  the  profession. 
This  change,  as  I  conceive,  has  been  maiidy  wrought  by  the  influence 
of  the  Medical  Society.  The  by-laws  of  the  society  required  students 
to  spend  full  three  years  in  study,  and  that  none  should  be  approbated 
whom  the  censors  did  not  solemnly  think  fit  to  be  intrusted  with  the 
life  and  health  of  mankind.  The  censors,  as  I  believe,  are  rigid  in 
their  examinations,  and  have  sometimes  turned  by  their  own  pupils. 
I  think  the  Sth  by-law  has  been  the  great  lever  by  which  the  society 
has  operated.  The  object  of  this  by-law  is  to  discourage  those  from 
coming  into  the  profession  who  are  not  regularly  educated.  It  has 
been  salutary  in  its  operation.  It  lias  sometimes  been  broken;  but  in 
those  counties  in  which  the  law  has  been  best  observed,  the  profession 
has  risen  the  highest.  If  the  welfare  of  a  patient  could  not  be  served 
otherwise,  the  physician  would  consult  with  an  irregular  practitioner. 
He  would  not,  of  course,  do  this  habitually,  to  encourage  irregular 
practice. 

With  regard  to  consultation,  I  would  say,  that  I  should  be  governed 
by  circumstances.  If  a  physician  was  merely  passing  through  the  city, 


40 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


and  stopped  a  few  days  without  designing  to  remain,  I  should  feel  at 
liberty  to  consult  with  him,  if  the  case,  in  my  judgment,  required  it. 
And  this  I  could  do  without  censure.  If  such  an  one  asked  for  con¬ 
sultation,  and  1  thought  the  case  a  doubtful  one,  I  should  endeavor  to 
obtain  the  opinion  of  my  medical  brethren  in  my  vicinity  before  I 
acted.  If  a  physician  came  into  the  city  to  stop  for  a  time  and  adver¬ 
tised  for  practice,  neglecting  or  refusing  to  put  himself  in  the  way  of 
obtaining  the  fellowship  of  the  society,  then  the  case  would  be  clear. 
By  his  neglecting  or  refusing  to  become  a  member  of  the  society,  he 
would  manifestly  declare  that  he  did  not  wish  its  countenance,  and, 
therefore,  I,  as  a  member  of  the  society,  should  not  feel  justified  in 
making  advances.  lie  would  be  clearly  an  irregular  practitioner,  and 
I  should  not  wish  to  associate  with  him.  If  a  physician  were  sent  for 
from  another  State,  to  remain  for  a  few  days  only,  if  the  case  he  was 
called  to  required  consultation,  I  should  feel  myself  authorized  to  yield 
it.  The  case  of  Dr.  Vanderburgh,  which  has  been  referred  to  in  the 
course  of  this  examination,  is  in  point.  He  was  called  here  at  the 
wish  of  a  very  respectable  family,  and  under  the  circumstances  I  felt 
there  was  no  impropriety  in  consulting  with  him,  although  I  did  not, 
myself,  consult  with  him.  The  difference  between  Dr.  Peirson’s  con¬ 
sultation  with  Dr.  Strong  and  Dr.  Bartlett’s  connection  with  Williams, 
must  be  obvious.  Dr.  Strong  was  a  regularly  graduated  physician 
from  the  Berkshire  Medical  School.  He  was  well  known  to  the  pro¬ 
fession,  and  it  was  understood  he  was  ready  to  unite  with  the  Medical 
Society  so  soon  as  a  certain  impediment,  relating  to  the  school  from 
which  he  graduated,  should  be  removed.  Williams  came  here  making 
great  pretensions  to  cure  disease  by  secret  remedies,  and  being  irre¬ 
sponsible  in  his  practice.  The  8th  by-law  would  never  be  enforced 
where  irregular  consultation  had  been  held  to  save  life.  There  is  no 
practical  difficulty  in  making  the  distinction  between  cases  like  Dr. 
Peirson’s  and  Dr.  Bartlett’s.  The  report  to  the  counsellors  of  the 
Medical  Society,  October  5th,  1836,  expresses  the  sentiment  of  the 
society  on  the  subject  of  consultations.  This  report  is  in  the  hands  of 
the  committee.* 


*  At  a  staled  meeting  of  tlic  Counsellors  of  the  Massachusetts  Medical  Society.  October 
5th,  183G,  the  following  report  was  read  and  accepted ;  and  the  Committee  on  publications 
were  directed  to  cause  it  to  be  published  and  distiibuted — 

The  Committee  appointed  at  the  stated  meeting  of  the  counsellors,  in  May  last,  “  to  in¬ 
quire  and  report  whether  any  facts  have  come  to  their  knowledge  of  the  violation  of  the  8th 
by-law,  relating  to  consultations,  fee.”  respectfully  ask  leave  to  report — 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE 


41 


When  speaking  of  what  the  Medical  Society  had  done  in  the  way  of 
diffusing  knowledge,  I  should  have  added,  that,  during  the  cholera 
panic,  all  the  works  that  could  be  obtained  on  the  subject  of  that  dis¬ 
ease  were  imported  from  England  and  France  for  the  benefit  of  medi- 

That,  at  the  same  meeting',  a  communication  was  received  from  a  Fellow  of  the  Society, 
charging  ten  individuals  with  a  violation  of  this  by-law,  and  one  with  a  violation  of  the  9th 
by-law.  This  communication  was  referred  to  the  same  Committee  ;  and  the  recording  sec¬ 
retary,  at  the  request  of  the  Committee,  immediately  after  the  meeting,  addressed  a  letter 
to  the  gentleman  who  brought  forward  the  charges,  informing  him  of  the  appointment  of  the 
Committee  and  of  their  readiness  to  receive  any  evidence  or  facts  of  which  he  might  be  in 
possession,  that  would  support  the  charges  that  he  had  advanced. 

No  reply,  however,  was  made  to  this,  and  the  Committee,  after  waiting  several  weeks, 
directed  their  chairman  to  make  another  application  for  the  same  purpose,  which  was  ac¬ 
cordingly  done  on  the  8th  of  August.  But  no  answer  was  received  to  this  note  till  October 
3d,  and  this  was  merely  a  repetition  of  the  charges,  with  the  names  of  the  individuals,  and 
of  those  of  two  or  three  not  in  the  first  letter.  No  evidence  whatever  was  furnished. 

The  Committee  cannot  forbear  the  expression  of  their  surprise,  that  any  Fellow  of  this 
society  should  make  charges  of  a  grave  character  against  other  Fellows,  and  some  of  them, 
too,  among  the  most  respectable  members  of  our  institution,  without  being  prepared  to  ex¬ 
hibit  the  proofs  on  which  he  grounded  his  accusations.  The  Committee  did  not  feel  that 
they  had  a  right  to  call  upon  the  individuals  thus  arraigned,  as  they  were  not  in  possession 
of  the  slightest  evidence  of  their  guilt ;  and  even  if  they  did  not  believe  them  innocent, 
though  they  certainly  had  no  reason  to  think  them  otherwise,  it  would  be  a  novel  mode  of 
conducting  an  investigation  of  this  character,  to  call  upon  the  accused  to  furnish  evidence 
that  might  lead  to  their  own  conviction.  The  Committee  would  further  remark,  that  one  of 
the  individuals  thus  accused,  is  not  a  Fellow  of  the  society,  having  withdrawn  from  it  many 
years  since,  and  that  his  name  has  been  inadvertently  continued  on  the  list.  They  would 
also  observe,  that  the  Fellow  who  is  charged  with  violating  the  9th  by-law,  by  recommend¬ 
ing  a  patent  medicine,  however  widely  he  may  have  deviated  from  the  spirit  of  the  law,  has 
not,  as  will  be  seen  by  referring  to  it,  violated  its  letter. 

And  here  the  Committee  might  close  their  report  by  remarking,  that  “  no  facts  have  come 
to  their  knowledge,  of  the  violation  of  the  8lh  by-law,”  which  require  the  animadversion  of 
the  society  ;  but  before  doing  this  they  would  respectfully  invite  the  attention  of  the  coun¬ 
sellors  to  one  or  two  points  connected  with  this  subject. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  they  would  remark,  that  there  is  a  palpable  difference  in  the  con¬ 
duct  of  those  individuals,  who,  by  accident,  inadvertence,  or  from  a  belief  that  some  good 
may  be  effected  by  it,  have  occasionally  met  and  consulted  with  irregular  practitioners,  and 
the  course  of  those,  who,  at  all  limes,  consult  with  such  practitioners,  knowing  their  true 
standing,  and  at  the  same  time  avow  their  determination  of  persisting  in  such  practices. 

It  no  doubt  occasionally  happens  to  a  Fellow  of  this  society  to  be  called  to  a  patient,  and 
to  find  on  his  arrival  that  he  is  in  the  charge  of  an  irregular  practitioner,  to  whom  the  physi¬ 
cian  is,  perhaps,  for  the  first  time  introduced.  He  may  be  unacquainted  with  his  true  stand¬ 
ing,  and  the  time  may  be  too  precious  to  be  lost  in  inquiries  on  the  subject;  or.  if  he  knows, 
the  situation  of  the  patient  may  be  such,  that,  by  refusing  to  act,  and  to  act  promptly,  he 
would  be  justly  liable  to  the  charge  of  inhumanity. 

Another  case,  and  one  where  the  course  is  still  less  doubtful,  may  occur.  A  Fellow  of 
the  society  may  be  called  to  meet  a  physician  of  good  education,  but  who  has  perhaps  so 
recently  come  into  the  State,  that  there  has  not  been  lime  for  him  to  be  licensed  by  the  cen- 

6 


42 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE 


cal  science,  at  the  expense  of  the  society.  A  report  was  made,  and 
two  maps  published,  showing  the  progress  of  the  disease,  from  its  ori¬ 
gin  in  India  to  its  introduction  in  Europe.  This  was  done  under 
the  direction  of  a  committee  of  seven.  By  the  knowledge  thus  ob- 

sors,  or  who  for  some  other  cause  is  not  in  good  standing  with  our  institution.  He  may  be 
ignorant  of  the  laws  and  unacquainted  with  the  method  which  he  should  adopt  to  obtain  fel¬ 
lowship.  It  would  be  obviously  unjust  to  class  such  an  individual  with  ignorant  and  design¬ 
ing  empirics ;  and  the  proper  course  for  a  member  of  our  society  seems  to  your  Committee, 
to  be,  to  meet  such  a  person,  and  to  explain  to  him  the  nature  of  our  institution,  the  object 
of  its  laws,  and  the  mode  of  admission,  and  thus  induce  him  to  attach  himself  to  it,  and  in 
this  way  give  additional  efficiency  to  our  rules. 

Both  of  the  supposed  cases  were  more  likely  to  happen  formerly,  when  the  society  was 
small  and  its  influence  inconsiderable,  than  at  present ;  and  much  more  likely  to  occur  in  the 
country,  where  the  practitioners  are  remote  from  each  other,  than  in  the  larger  towns,  where 
from  their  proximity,  the  character  and  standing  of  every  one  must  be  known. 

Though  the  Committee  have  made  these  suggestions  to  palliate  occurrences  of  the  kind 
alluded  to,  they  are  at  the  same  lime  of  opinion,  that  they  should  be  avoided  at  all  times,  as 
far  as  possible,  and  they  deem  it  to  be  the  duty  of  every  Fellow  of  the  society  scrupulously 
to  adhere  to  the  spirit  of  its  laws.  They  cannot  persuade  themselves  that  the  cases  which 
would  justify  a  deviation  from  them  can  be  of  frequent  occurrence. 

The  Committee  would  remark,  in  the  second  place,  that  there  seems  to  be  a  misappre¬ 
hension  in  the  minds  of  some,  as  to  the  object  of  our  laws  relating  to  consultations.  There 
are  many  who  affect  to  think,  and  there  are  perhaps  a  few  who  actually  believe,  that  these 
laws  are  made  for  the  benefit  of  the  profession,  when,  in  truth,  as  the  least  reflection  will 
show,  their  sole  purpose  is  to  promote  the  good  of  the  community;  to  guard  the  public 
against  ignorant,  designing,  and  unprincipled  pretenders.  Medical  men  alone  are  compe¬ 
tent  to  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  the  practitioners  of  the  healing  art,  and  it  is  their  duty 
to  point  out  a  course  of  education  to  be  pursued  by  those  who  intend  to  enter  on  this  ardu¬ 
ous  and  responsible  calling.  There  surely  can  be  no  ground  of  complaint  on  the  part  of 
candidates  for  the  medical  profession,  provided  that  it  be  neither  difficult  nor  burdensome  to 
comply  with  the  requirements  to  enter  it.  Now  it  is  notorious  that  this  is  not  the  ease  in 
this  Commonwealth,  and  consequently  there  is  nothing  exclusive  in  the  character  of  our 
regulations. 

Having  established  then  a  course  of  education,  and  fixed  the  manner  by  which  the  parlies 
are  to  give  evidence  that  they  have  successfully  pursued  it,  the  profession  are  bound  by  the 
duly  which  they  owe  to  their  fellow  citizens,  to  say  to  all  who  do  not  choose  to  pursue  this 
course  and  give  this  evidence,  that  if  they  undertake  to  practise  the  healing  art,  they  will 
hold  no  professional  communion  with  them.  We  have  then  discharged  our  duly  to  the  com¬ 
munity,  and  if  they  employ  such  unlicensed  persons,  they  do  it  on  their  own  responsibility ; 
no  blame  can  rest  on  us. 

The  regulations  of  our  society,  in  relation  to  those  who  have  been  educated  out  of  the 
Slate,  are  neither  oppressive  nor  unreasonable,  as  they  have  sometimes  been  represented, 
but  are  on  the  contrary  of  the  most  liberal  character.  They  require  only  that  such  persons 
should  give  evidence  of  having  gone  through  a  course  of  study  equal  to  that  which  is  de¬ 
manded  by  our  ow  n  laws.  The  diplomas  of  all  respectable  institutions  are  received  as  evi¬ 
dence  of  this  course,  provided  these  institutions  require  as  long  a  period  of  study  before  the 
examination  is  made,  as  is  done  here.  It  may  not  perhaps  be  necessary  to  require  more 
than  this,  but  less  could  not  be  demanded  in  justice  to  the  public. 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


43 


tained,  the  committee  were  enabled  to  recommend  such  measures  as 
were  best  adapted  to  check  its  progress.  The  committee  recommended 
cleanliness,  and  it  is  believed,  that  where  it  was  strictly  observed,  the 
disease  prevailed  much  less  than  where  it  was  disregarded.  The  soci¬ 
ety  incurred  considerable  expense  in  publishing  these  reports. 

During  the  last  ten  years,  the  society  has  expended  from  four  to 
six  hundred  dollars  per  annum  in  publishing  works  for  distribution 

This,  then,  is  all  our  society  undertakes  to  do  in  relation  to  practitioners  of  medicine  in 
this  Commonwealth.  In  what  consists  the  oppression  ?  Where  is  the  monopoly  ?  What 
are  the  exclusive  privileges  we  enjoy  ?  We  merely  point  out  a  course  of  medical  study, 
which  we  deem  it  necessary  for  the  welfare  and  safety  of  the  community  for  every  practi¬ 
tioner  of  medicine  to  pursue,  and  if  he  does  not  choose  to  give  evidence  that  he  has  done  this, 
we  say  that  we  will  hold  no  professional  intercourse  with  him.  We  do  nothing  more  ;  and 
if  he  be  not  successful  in  his  profession,  the  fault  may  be  in  him  ;  it  certainly  is  not  with  us. 

Can  we  do  less  than  this  ?  Should  we  not  be  wanting  in  our  duty  to  the  public  and  our¬ 
selves  if  we  neglected  to  do  it  ?  Would  it  be  right,  by  consulting  with  such  individuals,  to 
declare  to  the  world,  as  we  certainly  should  do,  that  we  believed  them  to  be  well  educated  ? 
When,  to  say  the  least,  we  have  no  evidence  of  the  fact.  Who  has  a  right  to  complain  of 
our  course  ?  Not  our  fellow  citizens,  for  they  can  employ  whom  they  please ;  and  the 
practitioners,  who  will  not  conform  to  our  rules  as  to  a  proper  course  of  study,  cannot  blame 
us  if  we  will  not  receive  them  as  associates  and  fellow  laborers. 

To  deny  us  the  privilege  of  determining  with  whom  and  on  what  terms  we  will  hold  pro¬ 
fessional  intercourse,  would  be  a  gross  violation  of  our  rights,  to  which  we  ought  not,  and  to 
which  we  never  could  submit.  It  is  an  interference  with  our  personal  concerns  that  cannot 
be  tolerated. 

The  Committee  deem  it  proper  to  remark,  in  conclusion,  that  the  course  which  this  socie¬ 
ty  has  adopted  in  relation  to  consultation,  seems  to  be  fully  authorized,  if  not  actually  con¬ 
templated  by  the  Legislature,  in  the  act  of  incorporation  passed  in  1781.  By  this  act,  it  will 
be  perceived,  that  the  President  and  Fellows,  or  such  officers  as  they  may  appoint,  are  au¬ 
thorized  to  examine  candidates  for  the  practice  of  physic  and  surgery,  as  to  their  skill  in 
their  profession ;  and  if  the  officers  thus  appointed  shall  refuse  to  examine  any  candidates 
who  may  offer  themselves,  each  and  every  one  of  the  examiners  shall  be  subject  to  a  fine  of 
one  hundred  pounds ,  to  be  recovered  by  the  candidate,  for  his  own  use,  in  any  court  in  this 
Commonwealth.  And  in  the  same  act,  the  following  forcible  language  is  used,  showing 
very  strikingly  the  sentiments  of  the  Legislature  on  this  subject  :  “  It  is  clearly  of  impor¬ 
tance  that  a  just  discrimination  should  be  made  between  such  as  are  duly  educated,  and 
perfectly  qualified  for  the  duties  of  their  profession,  and  those  who  may  ignorantly  and 
wickedly  administer  medicine,  whereby  the  health  and  lives  of  many  valuable  individuals 
may  be  endangered,  or  perhaps  lost  to  the  community.” 

It  is  believed  that  our  society  will  be  ever  anxious  to  make  this  discrimination,  and  that 
the  regulations  formed  for  this  purpose,  having  no  private  or  personal  object  in  view,  will 
be  complied  with  uniformly  and  with  cheerfulness  by  all  its  members.  If  this  be  done  in 
good  faith,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  that  the  public  good  will  be  essentially  promoted,  and  that 
our  institution  will  be  regarded  with  increased  favor  by  the  community. 

Which  is  respectfully  submitted,  by 

GEO.  HAYWARD,  5 

E.  HALE,  Jr.,  >  Committee. 

EBNR.  ALDEN,  ) 

Boston,  Oct.  5th,  1836. 


44 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


among  its  Fellows.  District  societies  are  benefited  by  being  furnished 
with  books  on  loan  from  the  library  of  the  society.  The  Medical  So¬ 
ciety  has  tended  to  prevent  quackery,  not  by  opposition,  but  by  fur¬ 
nishing  the  public  with  regularly  educated  physicians,  and  distinguish¬ 
ing:  those  who  are  so. 

In  reference  to  the  management  of  the  affairs  of  the  society,  I  would 
remark,  that  it  has  often  been  found  difficult  to  procure  gentlemen  to 
fill  its  offices,  and  that  when  good  officers  have  been  obtained,  so  oner¬ 
ous  have  been  their  duties  that  it  has  been  necessary  to  urge  them  to 
continue.  I  am  aware,  that  the  motives  of  those  most  actively  engaged 
have  been  misapprehended,  and  that  their  activity  has  been  ascribed 
to  selfishness,  when  it  was  based  in  a  desire  to  promote  the  general 
good.  But  I  am  happy  to  know  that  many  entertaining  these  views 
have  changed  them,  upon  a  more  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  truth. 

There  is  no  law  of  the  society  enjoining  secrecy  on  our  proceedings. 
We  transact  our  business  very  much  as  do  other  corporations.  The 
doors  are  open  and  shut  without  regard  to  privacy.  I  remember  one 
case,  in  which  the  character  of  an  individual  was  involved,  and  the 
presiding  officer,  to  prevent  any  unpleasant  consequences,  requested 
some  who  were  accidentally  present,  but  not  members  of  the  society, 
to  retire,  notifying  them  that  when  the  business  was  transacted  they 
should  be  informed,  that  they  might  return  and  hear  the  discourse. 
There  w'as  no  injunction  of  secrecy  in  this  case.  The  proceedings  of 
this  society  have  for  several  years  been  published. 

I  wras  present  at  the  examination  of  Dr.  Bartlett  before  the  counsel¬ 
lors,  previously  to  his  trial.  The  mode  of  his  examination  was  not 
oppressive.  He  had  every  opportunity  to  make  his  defence.  To  pre¬ 
vent  confusion  in  his  mind,  all  questions  were  addressed  him  through 
the  president.  1  was  likewise  present  at  the  trial  of  Dr.  Bartlett,  on 
which  occasion  the  remarks  imputed  to  Dr.  Peirson,  in  his  memorial, 
are  said  to  have  been  made.  I  am  confident  none  such,  nor  any 
breathing  the  same  spirit,  were  uttered  by  Dr.  P.  The  idea  of  disre¬ 
garding  the  duties  of  humanity  from  a  regard  to  specific  rules  of  con¬ 
duct,  w'ould  never  be  countenanced  by  the  Fellow’s  of  the  society,  nor 
by  physicians  generally.  Practically  there  is  no  difficulty  in  deciding 
w'hen  a  disregard  to  the  letter  of  the  law  is  proper.  A  physician 
should  hold  to  professional  rules  when  his  own  interest  is  concerned, 
but  w'hen  the  w'elfare  and  real  safety  of  the  sick  is  concerned,  he  is  to 
regard  them  first.  The  “  sacrifice  of  human  life”  to  preserve  the  by¬ 
laws,  is  a  sentiment  I  disclaim,  and  which  I  know'  is  not  entertained 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


45 


by  the  society.  There  are  some  more  vague  and  general  charges 
against  the  society  or  its  Fellows,  in  Dr.  B’s  Memorial,  which  I  believe 
to  be  utterly  groundless.  There  was  a  diveisity  of  opinion  about  his 
expulsion.  Some  thought  it  inexpedient,  for  reasons  already  stated  by 
other  witnesses.  The  majority,  however,  thought  otherwise.  There 
was  no  manifestation  of  ill  will  towards  Dr.  Bartlett,  that  I  am  apprized 
of,  by  any  member  of  the  Medical  Society.  I  believe  the  influence  of 
the  Medical  Society  on  young  members  to  be  in  the  highest  degree 
beneficial.  I  form  this  opinion  from  my  own  experience.  I  very  well 
recollect,  that  soon  after  I  commenced  practice,  I  inquired  of  a  phy¬ 
sician,  advanced  in  life,  whether  there  was  any  tribunal  to  which  I 
could  go  to  prove  my  qualifications,  saying,  it  would  be  worth  a  hun¬ 
dred  pounds  to  a  young  man.  But,  although  a  Fellow  of  the  society, 
he  said  there  was  not,  and  that  it  was  of  no  consequence.  At  that 
time  licenses  were  granted  by  the  society,  and  degrees  at  Cambridge, 
but  they  were  not  regarded  as  of  essential  importance.  So  satisfied, 
however,  did  I  become  of  the  utility  of  a  regular  introduction  into  the 
profession,  that  I  took  a  degree  two  years  after  I  commenced  business. 
I  did  this  that  I  might  more  consistently  enforce  the  principle  in  future 
on  others.  The  medical  diploma  does  not  certify  as  to  the  natural 
abilities  or  talent  of  the  graduate,  but  that  he  has  pursued  a  proper 
course  of  study,  and  passed  the  requisite  examination.  The  older 
members  of  the  profession  labor  for  the  benefit  of  the  younger.  1  have 
never  known  any  leaguing  of  the  few  to  control  the  many. 

Dr.  Waterhouse  has  not  been  considered  a  member  of  the  society 
since  about  1805  or  1806.  As  a  matter  of  courtesy  he  was  marked  on 
the  catalogue  as  a  retired  member.  That  mark  has  a  more  definite 
meaning  now  than  it  had  at  that  time.  I  never  saw  him  at  any  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  society  that  I  can  remember,  and  certainly  not  since  1806. 
He  has  not  been  charged  with  assessments  since  that  period,  as  I  be¬ 
lieve,  nor  do  I  think  him  to  have  been  amenable  to  the  by-laws,  since 
the  year  he  is  marked  as  having  retired. 

Cross-examined  by  Dr.  Bartlett.  Dr.  Jackson,  allow  me  to  ask,  if 
the  immortal  Jenner  had  come  here  for  a  few  weeks  to  practise,  and 
diffuse  the  knowledge  of  vaccination,  would  you,  as  a  member  of  the 
Mass.  Medical  Society,  have  consulted  with  him? 

Ans.  Such  a  case  is  hardly  supposable,  for  medical  men,  of  real 
worth  and  eminence  of  character,  do  not  travel  from  place  to  place  to 
practise.  I  should  suspect  such  a  man,  and  avoid  him.  Jenner  pub¬ 
lished  his  discovery  for  the  good  of  mankind,  and  his  publications 


46 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


answered  every  purpose  of  his  coming  here.  But  supposing  such  a 
case  to  occur,  I  should  not  unite  with  him,  without  having  represented 
the  case  to  my  professional  brethren,  and  invited  their  concurrence. 
By  such  consent  and  co-operation,  all  suspicion  of  selfishness  w'ould  be 
removed. 

Quest.  Suppose  a  man  to  come  into  the  city  for  ten  or  twelve 
weeks,  having  accredited  diplomas,  and  during  that  time  have  no  op¬ 
portunity  to  join  the  society,  tvould  you  then,  as  a  member  of  that 
society,  consult  with  him  ? 

Ans.  We  cannot  know  any  thing  of  a  man’s  qualifications,  nor  of 
his  claims  to  confidence,  unless  he  presents  them  for  our  examination. 
If  such  a  person  should  come  here  and  advertise  for  practice,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  manifest  no  desire  to  connect  himself  with  the  society, 
I  certainly  should  decline  his  acquaintance.  If,  however,  he  really 
wushed  to  join  the  society  and  enjoy  its  privileges,  and  wras  prevented 
in  consequence  of  the  censors  not  having  a  session,  the  case  wTould  be 
different.  An  honest  man  will  find  no  difficulty  in  conducting  himself 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  show  that  he  is  not  actuated  solely  by  personal 
interest,  but  by  a  regard  for  the  public. 

In  answer  to  a  question  by  Dr.  Bartlett,  Dr.  J.  said,  I  am  not  aware 
that  the  Medical  Society  exercises  censorship  of  the  press.  I  think 
the  article  published  in  the  Pilot,  concerning  Dr.  Williams,  expressed 
the  sentiment  of  a  physician,  as  the  writer  spoke  of  his  degree  and  of 
his  experience  as  a  physician. 

The  present  organization  of  the  Medical  Society  I  believe  the  best 
for  the  interests  of  medical  science.  It  aims  to  elevate  the  character  of 
professional  attainments,  and  there  are  doors  enough  through  which  a 
man  may  enter,  if  he  choose.  We  recognise  all  who  are  willing  to 
conform  to  the  terms  of  membership.  If  others  do  not  choose  to  re¬ 
cognise  us,  we  do  not  complain.  They  only  exercise  their  right;  and 
they  should  not  complain  if  we  do  not  recognise  them.  It  is  not  for 
seven  hundred  to  court  one. 

Quest.  What  is  the  difference  between  a  dentist  and  an  oculist,  in 
relation  to  other  members  of  the  profession  ? 

Ans.  Generally,  their  character  is  essentially  the  same.  In  some 
respects,  however,  there  is  a  difference.  The  simple  extraction  of  a 
tooth,  being  mechanical,  may  be  done  without  any  knowledge  of  medi¬ 
cal  science.  But  the  application  of  remedies  to  the  eye  requires  a 
knowledge  of  medical  science,  and  so  does  a  treatment  of  diseases  of 
the  teeth.  To  illustrate  his  opinion,  Dr.  J.  said,  that  a  man  treating 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


47 


diseases  of  the  joints,  &c.  by  external  remedies,  practised  surgery,  and 
that  this  was  not  a  new  opinion  of  his,  to  meet  the  present  case,  for  he 
had  stated  the  same  on  another  occasion.  Mr.  Hewett  had  once  called 
on  him,  wishing  that  he  would  aid  him  in  a  suit  at  law,  by  certifying 
that  he  (Hewett)  was  not  a  surgeon.  But  he  (Dr.  J.)  felt  bound  to 
say  to  him,  that  he  practised  surgery,  though  he  would  not  be  ready  to 
say  that  he  did  it  scientifically,  or  that  he  did  it  well,  having  never  wit¬ 
nessed  his  method  of  operation. 

Question  by  Dr.  Bartlett.  Do  you  think  the  affairs  of  the  Medical 
Society  are  managed  as  well  and  as  usefully  as  they  were  ten  or  twenty 
years  ago  ? 

Ans.  Of  late  years,  the  purposes  of  the  Medical  Society  have  been 
more  fully  answered  than  formerly. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hinckley.  What  would  be  the  effect  of  repealing 
the  charter  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society? 

Ans.  I  think  the  repeal  of  its  charter  would  be  injurious  to  the 
community.  It  would  be  so  because  community  would  not  be  so  well 
able  to  determine  who  were,  and  who  were  not  regularly  educated 
practitioners.  It  would  also  be  an  inconvenience  to  us,  from  having 
so  long  acted  under  a  charter.  Even  if  devoted  to  scientific  objects 
only,  a  charter  would  be  convenient.  This  has  been  shown  lately  in 
the  instance  of  the  Boston  Society  for  Medical  Improvement.  This 
society  is  confined  entirely  to  scientific  objects,  yet  has  found  a  charter 
necessary,  and  has  obtained  one  at  the  present  session  of  the  General 
Court.  The  repeal  of  our  charter  would  deprive  young  physicians, 
regularly  educated,  of  the  advantages  they  now  enjoy. 

At  the  meeting  at  which  Dr.  Bartlett  was  expelled,  and  just  before 
his  expulsion,  he  brought  forward  general  and  loose  charges,  against 
various  Fellows  of  the  society,  for  infractions  of  the  8th  by-law.  The 
society  proceeded  on  the  business  in  which  they  were  engaged,  and  did 
not  stop  to  investigate  the  matters  thus  brought  forward.  The  next 
day,  at  a  meeting  of  the  counsellors,  I  alluded  to  those  charges,  and 
said,  that  though  vague,  and  not  coming  from  a  source  deserving  much 
regard,  they  ought  to  be  attended  to,  for  the  honor  of  the  persons  at¬ 
tacked,  if  for  no  other  motive.  I  therefore  moved,  that  a  committee 
should  be  appointed  to  inquire  whether  there  was  any  ground  for  those 
charges,  and  before  whom  any  persons  supporting  them  might  appear. 
While  this  motion  was  under  consideration,  Dr.  Lewis  produced  a 
written  statement,  containing  in  substance  the  same  charges  which  had 
been  preferred  by  Dr.  Bartlett.  A  committee  was  then  appointed  to 


48 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


attend  to  that  matter,  and  the  report  of  that  committee  was  printed.  It 
is  the  one  before  referred  to.* 

Dr.  Peirson,  of  Salem,  sworn  and  examined. 

Dexter.  Dr.  Peirson,  I  wish  to  ask  you  a  few  questions  on  certain 
points  in  this  case.  Dr.  Bartlett  in  the  tenth  allegation  of  his  memori¬ 
al,  has  charged  you  with  using  certain  language  and  uttering  certain 
sentiments  before  the  Mass.  Medical  Society  at  their  annual  meeting 
on  the  occasion  of  his  trial,  to  wit :  “  That  the  laws  of  the  Mass. 

Medical  Society  do  not  recognise  the  sentiment,  that  a  regard  for  mo¬ 
rality  and  the  general  good  of  mankind  is,  in  any  wise,  incumbent  on 
its  members ;  and  that  its  members  are  bound  to  obey  the  by-laws  of 
the  society  without  reserve,  even  though  the  sacrifice  of  human  life  be 
the  consequence.”  Did  you,  or  did  you  not,  utter  this  language? 

Ans.  It  is  utterly  false  that  I  used  the  language,  or  uttered  the  sen¬ 
timents  imputed  to  me  by  Dr.  Bartlett  in  his  memorial.  It  is  false  in 
language  and  false  in  idea  It  is  false  in  general  and  false  in  particu¬ 
lar.  The  report  of  his  trial  is  very  fair.  I  should  say  his  remarks  are 
more  fully  reported  than  mine ;  but  I  do  not  think  any  partiality  was 
meant.  As  to  saying  human  life  was  not  to  be  regarded,  if  to  regard 
it  was  to  disobey  the  laws  of  the  society,  I  disavow  the  sentiment.  I 
could  not  have  uttered  it  at  such  a  time,  and  in  such  a  place.  It  would 


*  See  page  40.  In  reference  to  this  matter  Dr.  J.  wishes  to  have  the  following  note 
added. 

The  measures  pursued  in  this  case  were  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Bartlett,  so 
far  as  they  went.  In  his  case  a  committee  of  inquiry  was  appointed,  without  mentioning 
Dr.  B’s  name,  so  that  his  name  might  not  appear  on  the  journal  until  some  specific  charge 
was  made  out.  To  this  committee  specific  charges  were  made  against  Dr.  Bartlett,  ant 
evidence  was  adduced  in  support  of  them.  Dr.  B  was  then  informed  that  such  specific 
charges  had  been  brought,  and  that  he  would  be  heard  in  his  defence  at  a  meeting  of  the 
counsellors. 

In  reference  to  the  cases  referred  to  in  the  text,  where  the  names  had  been  brought  for¬ 
ward  by  Dr.  Lewis,  a  committee  of  inquiry  was  likewise  appointed.  To  that  committee 
any  one  could  have  brought  specific  charges  and  the  evidence  to  support  them  Dr.  Lewis 
was  called  upon  by  the  committee,  as  his  charges  had  not  been  specific,  and  as  they  were 
unaccompanied  by  evidence.  His  reply  to  the  committee  was,  that  he  had  no  evidence  ti 
produce.  Here  then  the  matter  stopped,  for  no  other  person  brought  forward  any  evi 
dence.  If  the  committee  had  called  upon  the  parties  accused  when  they  had  not  any  evi¬ 
dence  whatever  against  them,  a  practice  would  have  been  introduced  which  might  have 
led  to  the  accusation  in  turn  of  every  Fellow  of  the  society. 

I  think  it  proper  to  add,  that  one  or  more  of  the  persons  accused,  not  satisfied  with  this 
slate  of  things,  did  bring  before  the  counsellors  their  own  cases,  with  such  explanation  as 
that  the  counsellors  did  not  think  proper  to  censure  them. 

The  above  statement  is  made  from  memory  without  consulting  the  records  of  the  society 
and  the  documents  on  file ;  but  I  am  satisfied  that  it  is  substantially  correct. 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


49 


‘have  produced  a  general  burst  of  indignation.  I  never  entertained 
such  a  thought.  I  never  believed  such  a  doctrine.  I  never  avowed 
such  a  principle.  I  never  uttered  any  where,  at  any  time,  such  an  ex¬ 
pression.  I  most  solemnly  deny  it  in  thought  or  word.  I  deny  it  in 
general,  in  detail,  out  and  out. 

What  I  did  say  on  the  occasion  of  Dr.  Bartlett’s  trial  has  been  gross¬ 
ly  perverted.  The  simple  truth  in  the  case  was  this  :  Dr.  B.  as  one 
ground  of  justification  of  his  course,  assumed  that  it  was  legal,  that  he 
had  done  nothing  which  transcended  the  rules  and  laws  of  the  society. 
To  prove  this,  he  read  an  extract  from  the  “  Boston  Medical  Police,” 
the  rules  and  regulations  of  another  association,  which  he  mistook  for 
the  by-laws  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society.  By  this  he  purposed  to 
show,  that  the  rules  of  the  society  sanctioned  his  conduct.  In  reply,  I 
said  he  had  misapprehended  the  matter,  that  the  clause  on  which  he 
founded  his  argument  was  not  in  the  books  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Soci- 
ety,  nor  was  it  in  any  article  of  the  by-laws,  and  consequently  that  it 
did  not  relate  to  the  affairs  of  the  society.  The  point  I  wished  to  es¬ 
tablish  was,  that  Dr.  Bartlett’s  argument  for  the  legality  of  his  conduct 
was  not  valid,  inasmuch  as  it  was  based  on  the  code  of  a  private,  local 
association,  and  not,  as  he  supposed,  on  the  language  of  our  by-laws. 
And  it  is  on  this  ground,  that  I  have  been  charged  in  his  memorial, 
with  saying,  that  the  members  of  the  society  are  bound  to  obey  its  by¬ 
laws  without  reserve,  even  though  the  sacrifice  of  human  life  be  the 
consequence.  That  I  never  made,  nor  was  understood  to  make  such 
a  declaration,  the  certificate  ofDrs.  Warren,  Hale  and  Homans,  clear¬ 
ly  proves. 

[Here  Dr.  P.  read  the  certificate  which  is  inserted  on  p.  18.] 

Between  my  consultation  with  Dr.  Strong  and  Dr.  Bartlett’s  inter¬ 
course  with  Williams,  about  which  so  much  has  been  said,  there  is  no 
kind  of  analogy.  Dr.  Strong  was  a  regular  graduate  of  the  Berkshire 
Medical  Institution.  He  had  often  expressed  a  desire  to  become  a 
member  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society,  and  was  prevented  from  so  do¬ 
ing  only  out  of  regard  to  the  feelings  of  his  friends  connected  with  the 
former  institution.  He  finally  did  determine  to  join  the  Mass.  Medical 
Society,  and  was  on  nomination  at  the  time  of  Dr.  Bartlett’s  trial.  I 
was  called  to  consult  with  Dr.  Strong  in  the  case  of  a  young  lady  in 
Miss  Grant’s  school,  at  Ipswich.  I  informed  the  District  Society,  to 
which  I  belonged,  what  I  had  done.  At  the  annual  meeting  of  the 
general  Society,  when  Dr.  Bartlett’s  trial  took  place,  I  stated  the  rea¬ 
sons  for  my  consultation,  and  expressed  my  willingness,  if  it  were 

7 


50 


J.  S.  BARTLETT'S  CASE. 


thought  wrong,  to  submit  to  any  discipline  they  might  choose  to 
impose.  Now  there  is  a  manifest  difference  between  a  physician’s 
placing  himself  in  this  attitude  and  taking  the  ground  assumed  by  Dr. 
Bartlett,  viz.,  that  he  would  consult  with  whomever  he  pleased,  when¬ 
ever  he  pleased,  and  wherever  he  pleased,  in  violation  of  the  by-laws 
of  the  society,  which  he  had  agieed  to  obey. 

With  regard  to  Dr.  Bartlett’s  12th  allegation,  that  I  objected  to  the 
reading  before  the  counsellors  of  his  letter,  in  which  he  says  “  he  ex¬ 
postulated  with  the  society  in  a  most  respectful  manner,”  I  did,  I  be- 
believe,  in  common  with  all  the  rest  of  that  body,  (at  least,  with  a 
majority,  for  a  vote  was  taken  on  the  subject,)  object  to  the  reading  of 
a  long  letter,  which  was  printed  and  offered  for  sale  at  the  bookstores. 
The  ground  of  my  objection  was,  that  this  letter  was,  generally,  most 
disrespectful  to  the  society,  and  intended  to  convey  a  gross  personal 
insult  to  me  in  particular.  If  you  turn  to  the  first  page  of  that  letter, 
you  will  find  the  following  language,  which  is  totally  at  variance  with 
Dr.  Bartlett’s  present  declaration  that  he  does  not  consider  Dr.  Wil¬ 
liams  a  practitioner  of  medicine  or  surgery,  and  that  he  did  not  consult 
with  him,  nor  aid  and  abet  him  professionally,  but  only  editorially  : 

“  In  the  course  of  the  investigation  of  this  subject,  it  undoubtedly 
appeared  manifest,  that  he  [Dr.  B.]  had  ffjr’PUBLICLY  (not  covertly) 
aided,  abetted  and  been  in  consultation  with  certain  medical  gentlemen, 
contemplated  in  the  8th  article  of  the  M.  M.  S.  law's.” 

He  then  goes  on  to  quote  part  of  the  8th  by-law,  defining  w'hat  is 
meant  by  an  irregular  practitioner  of  medicine  or  surgery. 

I  wish  here  to  say,  I  never  have  entertained  any  personal  ill  feeling 
towards  Dr.  Bartlett.  It  was  with  reluctance  I  undertook  to  conduct 
the  prosecution  against  him.  I  took  a  friendly  interest  in  him  when 
he  first  commenced  practice,  and  I  now  cherish  no  unkind  sentiments 
towards  him. 


The  Committee,  in  conclusion,  respectfully  ask  to  be 
discharged  from  further  consideration  of  the  subject. 


For  the  Committee, 

EDWIN  M.  STONE,  Chairman . 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


51 


ADDENDA. 

The  following  interrogatories  and  answers  were  acci¬ 
dentally  omitted  on  page  16.  The  omission  was  not 
discovered  until  the  work  was  too  far  advanced  for  inser¬ 
tion  in  their  appropriate  place.  They  should  follow  the 
answer  to  the  question,  “  When  did  you  take  your  de¬ 
gree  ?” 

Dexter.  How  old  was  you  at  the  time  you  received  your  degree? 

Ans.  I  was  18  on  the  14th  of  May  previous. 

Dexter.  When  did  you  become  a  member  of  the  Mass.  Medical 
Society  ? 

A//s.  I  cannot  recollect.  As  you  have  the  books,  you  can  ascertain 
by  examining  them. 

Dexter.  Is  this  your  hand-writing? 

Ans.  It  is. 

Dexter.  Then  you  became  a  member  on  — - —  Feb.,  1834.  How 
old  were  you  then? 

Ans.  I  am  not  arithmetician  enough  to  say  the  multiplication  table. 
If  any  gentleman  present  can  calculate  this  important  question,  I  shall 
be  obliged  to  him  for  his  services. 

Dexter.  You  were  then  between  22  and  23  years  of  age. 

Bartlett.  I  have  no  doubt  of  the  fact.  I  know  I  was  18  in  1830, 
and  have  reason  to  believe  I  shall  be  27  in  1839.  I  hope  this  impor¬ 
tant  point  is  now  settled. 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


53 


APPENDIX. 


Near  the  close  of  the  last  meeting,  Dr.  Bartlett  said  he  wished  to 
read  an  affidavit  from  Dr.  Waterhouse,  and  a  letter  from  the  French 
Consul,  which  were  in  answer  to  certain  interrogatories  he  had  pro¬ 
pounded.  Mr.  Dexter  said,  if  they  were  to  be  read  in  evidence,  he 
should  object,  inasmuch  as  such  evidence  would  be  exparte,  and  he 
should  claim  the  right  to  cross-question.  If  read  merely  for  informa¬ 
tion  it  was  perhaps  a  matter  of  little  moment,  and  he  should  not  be 
strenuous,  though  he  thought  them  irrelevant  to  the  examination  of 
this  evening.  No  appeal  was  made  to  the  Committee,  and  Dr.  B.  read 
the  documents,  which,  having  completed,  were  folded  up  and  taken 
away  by  him.  Two  days  subsequently,  just  at  the  close  of  the  session, 
after  the  report  of  the  Committee  had  been  accepted,  and  the  Commit¬ 
tee  discharged,  the  documents  were  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  chair¬ 
man,  with  a  request  from  the  counsel  for  Dr.  B.  that  they  might  be 
printed  with  the  evidence.  The  affidavit  of  Dr.  Waterhouse,  the 
chairman  of  the  Committee  has  not  felt  at  liberty  to  incorporate  with 
the  evidence,  not  understanding  it  to  have  been  offered  as  such  at  the 
time.  This  view  was  concurred  in  by  two  members  of  the  Commit¬ 
tee,  he  having  no  opportunity  to  converse  with  the  others.  But  that 
the  strict  impartiality  which  the  Committee  endeavored  to  maintain, 
may  not  be  reasonably  impugned,  the  paper  from  Dr.  Waterhouse  is 
inserted  in  this  appendix.  The  letter  from  the  French  Consul,  relat¬ 
ing  to  the  diplomas  of  Dr.  Williams,  is  not  inserted,  from  a  belief  that 
the  vote  at  the  ninth  meeting  excludes  it.  The  diplomas  were  not  offi¬ 
cially  examined  by  the  Committee. 


54 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


To  the  questions  severally  propounded  below  and  following,  I,  Ben^ 
jamin  Waterhouse,  return  the  answers  thereto  appertaining  under  oath, 
as  follows,  and  as  propounded  by  John  Stephen  Bartlett,  Doctor  of 
Medicine  of  Harvard  University,  to  wit,  on  this  eighth  day  of  April,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-nine. 

1.  Were  you  ever  a  member  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society? 

Ans.  Yes. 

2.  W'ere  you  ever  expelled,  censured,  reprimanded,  or  in  any  wise 
subjected  to  the  penal  discipline  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society? 

Ans.  Not  that  I  ever  knew. 

3.  Did  you  ever  by  word,  action,  or  letter,  communicate  to  the  offi¬ 
cers  of  the  Mass.  Medical  Society,  your  intention  or  desire  to  with¬ 
draw  from  the  Fellowship,  honorary  or  active,  of  that  body? 

Ans.  Never. 

4.  Have  you  publicly  recommended  a  certain  Samuel  Thomson, 
popularly  known  as  the  founder of  what  is  called  the  “  Thomsonian  Sys¬ 
tem  of  Medicine,”  ns  a  great  public  benefactor;  and  as  a  man  eminent 
for  medical  research  and  skill;  and  have  you  published  or  caused  to 
be  published  such  recommendation  over  your  own  proper  signature? 

Ans.  I  have. 

5.  Do  you  from  personal  observation  and  experience  believe,  that 
the  Mass.  Medical  Society,  has  in  the.  general  sense,  been  productive 
of  good  or  evil  to  the  profession  of  medicine,  or  to  the  community  at 
large,  under  its  organization  and  by-laws  as  they  existed  in  1835? 

Ans.  I  answer,  that  such  restrictions  as  are  contained  in  the  by¬ 
laws  of  the  society  as  above  referred  to,  wouid  not  be  tolerated  in  any 
civilized  country,  to  my  knowledge,  excepting  in  this  Commonwealth. 

0.  In  your  opinion,  are  restrictive  laws,  (professionally  speaking,) 
calculated  to  promote  the  advancement  of  medical  science,  when  they 
exclude  those  under  their  influence,  from  availing  themselves  of  the 
skill  or  science  of  educated  men,  who  prefer  not  to  subject  themselves 
to  local  regulations,  although  their  professional  eminence  may  be  in¬ 
dubitably  proved  ? 

Ans.  I  think  such  laws  improper,  unwise,  and  absurd. 

7.  Is  it  your  opinion,  that  a  dissolution,  or  modified  organization  of 
the  present  Mass.  Medical  Society,  would  be  for  the  welfare  of  the 
people  of  this  Commonwealth,  and  for  the  interest  of  the  medical  pro¬ 
fession  ? 

Ans.  I  think,  that  in  order  to  effect  good,  the  laws  and  organiza¬ 
tion  of  the  society  require  essential  change  and  modification. 


J.  S.  BARTLETT’S  CASE. 


55 


COMMONWEALTH  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

Middlesex,  ss. 

Cambridge,  April  8,  1839. 

Then  personally  appeared  the  within  named  Benjamin  Waterhouse, 
and  made  oath  to  the  truth  of  the  within  written  answers  to  the  ques¬ 
tions  within  propounded,  and  declared  them  to  be  true  to  the  best  of 
his  knowledge  and  belief.  Before  me, 


Attest. 


ABRAHAM  HILLIARD,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 


/  &  f?  2s  y 


' 


1  1  v 


